Rambam on the Satan and Ra (Part 6: Three Types of Ra)

Length: 1 hour 25 minutes
Synopsis: This morning (5/8/26), in our Friday morning Sefer Iyov series for women, we review what we covered last time, then learned and discussed the rest of the Rambam's Moreh ha'Nevuchim 3:12, in which he outlines the three types of ra that befall human beings. In addition to the points explicitly raised by the Rambam, we also discussed why these types of ra MUST exist. This may be our last shiur in this "Rambam on the Satan and Ra" subseries within our larger series on Iyov.
-----
מקורות:
רמב"ם - מורה הנבוכים ג:יב
R. Natan Slifkin: https://www.rationalistjudaism.com/p/back-pain-and-toothache
-----

This week's content is sponsored by Benjy Weiss, currently a student at Yeshivat Migdal HaTorah. The vast majority of my talmidim over the past six years learned at Migdal, and the rabbeim there clearly do an excellent job fostering their development. Migdal promotes the same approach to Torah study that my own rabbeim have bequeathed to me: asking questions and pursuing answers that make sense. If you've gained from my shiurim these past six years, you've also benefited from Migdal, consider making a contribution. Campaign runs through Monday: https://www.zeffy.com/en-US/fundraising/benjy-weiss

The Torah content for the month of Iyyar is sponsored by Naomi Schwartz Rothschild in memory of her mother, Breindel Bracha bas Mordechai z”l, whose yahrzeit falls on the 8th of Iyyar. She learned and lived Torah, and was a tremendous baalas chesed.

-----

If you've gained from what you've learned here, please consider contributing to my Patreon at www.patreon.com/rabbischneeweiss. Alternatively, if you would like to make a direct contribution to the "Rabbi Schneeweiss Torah Content Fund," my Venmo is @Matt-Schneeweiss, and my Zelle and PayPal are mattschneeweiss at gmail. Even a small contribution goes a long way to covering the costs of my podcasts, and will provide me with the financial freedom to produce even more Torah content for you.

If you would like to sponsor a day's or a week's worth of content, or if you are interested in enlisting my services as a teacher or tutor, you can reach me at rabbischneeweiss at gmail. Thank you to my listeners for listening, thank you to my readers for reading, and thank you to my supporters for supporting my efforts to make Torah ideas available and accessible to everyone.
-----
Substack: rabbischneeweiss.substack.com/
YU Torah: yutorah.org/teachers/Rabbi-Matt-Schneeweiss
Patreon: patreon.com/rabbischneeweiss
YouTube Channel: youtube.com/rabbischneeweiss
Instagram: instagram.com/rabbischneeweiss/
"The Stoic Jew" Podcast: thestoicjew.buzzsprout.com
"Machshavah Lab" Podcast: machshavahlab.buzzsprout.com
"The Mishlei Podcast": mishlei.buzzsprout.com
"Rambam Bekius" Podcast: rambambekius.buzzsprout.com
"The Tefilah Podcast": tefilah.buzzsprout.com
Old Blog: kolhaseridim.blogspot.com/
WhatsApp Content Hub (where I post all my content and announce my public classes): https://chat.what

Transcript

SPEAKER_02 0:12

We are back to the, I think this is gonna be the final um installment of the sub-series of Ramam on the nature of raw within the EOF series, the larger EOF series. Uh, I think this is part six. So last time we uh we reviewed 310, which was the Ramam's definition and theory of Ra. And then we covered the very short 311, which was uh about ignorance as Ra. And we did the first half of 312, which was about Ra in the world. So the agenda today is we'll do a quick review of 311 and then the first part of 312, which we can uh covered last time, and then we will learn the rest of 312, and then we'll be done with uh with that. Okay, so review, and I'm just gonna review the same way as we usually do, which is I'll read through the uh or talk through the um the notes from last time, and then if you have questions uh or comments, then feel free to chime in. Okay, so 311. Um, so again, very, very basic idea of or very uh not basic idea, very quick review of 310, which is that all raos are privations and they are relative to the good that Hashem created. Um, and Hashem's relationship with Ra, therefore, is indirect because uh you cannot directly create or produce a privation, you can only produce good. Um, and the only connection that Hashem has to Ra is the fact that he created matter in a manner that that is always attached to privation and um and is always subject to to entropy, uh, because that's the nature of the physical world. So that was 310. 311, uh the Ramam says that even the Ra'os that we cause to each other through our uh our choices stem from a privation, which is a privation of wisdom. And the cure for that is the good of knowledge. And he says that that's why at the time of Mashiach, then when we get this huge influx of knowledge of Hashem through knowledge of Torah, knowledge of the world, uh, knowledge of ourselves, then that will remove all of the interpersonal Ra and we will have um uh worldwide peace. And we asked a question on this, which is that, you know, on the surface, if this is the first time you thought about this issue, then you might say, well, you know, is all ra really a result of ignorance? I mean, there are people who know that smoking is bad, but they smoke anyway. So we clarified and we said that ignorance comes in two forms. Uh, there is, you know, lack of information, so purely intellectual ignorance. Uh, and then there's also when you have the knowledge, but it's not real to you because your emotions uh distort it or dilute it or diminish it or override it. Uh and the Ramam is talking about knowledge in that broader sense and ignorance in that broader sense. And we know that because in chapter 3.9, he talked about matter as the barrier to knowledge. And we said that one of the ways that it's a barrier to knowledge is not just the fact that our intellectual knowledge is rooted in uh sense perceptions, but also the fact that our emotions blind us uh to the truth and distort our uh our you know our our knowledge. So that was uh 311. Any uh questions or comments on that? Okay, moving on to 312. So he started off by quoting a common belief, which he also attributed to Al-Razi, which is the idea, uh the belief that there's more bad in the world than good. He said Al-Razi was this guy who you know attempted to demonstrate this scientifically by counting up all the various forms of suffering that we have and saying that suffering uh outweighs uh, you know, there's more suffering in life than uh than good. Um, and uh um and you know, he thought he was being all philosophical with that. But then the Ramam says that that really boils down to um a uh one cause, which we said is ego, uh, and it's ego in in really several senses. It's assuming that the world revolves around you and using yourself as the measure of all good and bad, and defining things as bad when they when reality doesn't go your way. So um if you have that uh that uh standard for good and bad, so then yeah, you might come up with Al Razi's uh uh conclusion that there's more bad than good. But if you recognize what your place is in reality and you frame the good and the bad properly, then you'll realize that in the world as a whole, in the universe as a whole, then the types of complaints that you have about your life are not complaints that would really apply to the stars and the planets and the plants and the animals and even most of humanity, um, but really are uh you know, really localized in terms of your own um self and filter through your own self. Yeah, uh Este?

SPEAKER_06 5:11

Um in terms of a person seeing everything through themselves, I feel like and maybe maybe you don't want to get into it. I feel a little bit sounds like dualism, like why people think that there's like you know, like a good God and a bad guy. Is that just like the same thing, but one's a projection and the other is just they feel like very related, but they're not the same. So yeah, they're not they're not the same.

SPEAKER_02 5:32

You can have Al-Razi's problem without dualism, uh, because I, you know, Al-Razi was a was a Muslim. Um and um uh but yeah, dualism is when you basically go one step further and you I mean, I don't know if you if that's the only route to dualism, but it is a common cause of dualism where you define everything based on your experience uh of basically you know pain and and the opposite, and then you project that onto reality and say that there's a good God and a bad god. But yeah, I don't know, I don't know how I see them them being connected, but I don't uh fully grasp the um you know what's yeah, okay.

SPEAKER_06 6:12

Yeah, I was just wondering if you had a ready answer for that.

SPEAKER_02 6:15

Dualism is definitely an ecotistical uh uh uh you know stems from e uh egotism as well. Right. Okay. So the last point uh that the Rama made, which I'm actually gonna read just so we could rev up into the new part, is he says, um, yeah, the true way of considering this is that all existing individuals of the human species, and all the more so those of other species of animals, are something of no value whatsoever in relation to the whole of ongoing existence. When he says no value, he means like in comparative um terms, like like uh, you know, like they're they're they're basically well, you'll see what he quotes. He says, uh scripture makes clear saying, man is like a breath, uh, or man that is a worm, and the son of man a maggot. How much more, uh, how much less those who dwell in houses of clay? Behold, the nations are as a drop from a bucket. And all this is said in the language of the prophetic books on this theme, um, which is noble and of great benefit for a person's knowledge of his own worth. Let him not err and suppose that existence is not for the sake of him as an individual alone. Uh, rather, existence, according to our view, is because of the will of its creator, in which the human species is the least of what it is in it in relation to the higher existences, that is, the celestial spheres and stars. As for comparison with the angels, there is in truth no comparison in value between him and them. Man is merely the noblest of all that comes into being in the lower world, this lower world of ours, that is the noblest of all that is composed of the elements. So, pausing here for a second, um, we did the chapters of the Morning Vukum out of order. So, two Thursdays ago, I gave Shear on the Morni Vukum 313, which is one chapter after this, where he talks about the purpose of the universe. And that's where he made this point that that people who assume that the universe exists for the sake of man are wildly diluting them, diluting themselves. Uh, and then in I don't know how many of you did the homework already, but the homework of watching the videos about the scale of the universe that drives home the point in a very emotional way, which is that we are really, really nothing. And the Ramam thought that we were nothing when, you know, back in the time when they thought that the universe was much smaller than we know that it is now. Now we realize like really, really, really how small and insignificant we are. Um, so that uh those those two chapters follow after this one. But uh, if you've gone through that shear and those videos, then you'll really appreciate it. Okay, the last paragraph we read last time is he says, and even so, his existence, man's existence is a great good for him and an act of grace from God in what he has singled him out with and perfected him. The majority of the raos that befall individuals of the species are due to them. I mean deficiencies existing in the persons themselves. We'll elaborate on this today. Uh, is over our own deficiencies that we cry out and call for help. Um, I mean, sorry, uh, and we suffer from raos that we ourselves bring about by our own free choice, yet we attribute them to God. Exalted as he above all that. As he made clear in his book, saying, is the wrong his? No, the defect is his children's. Uh and Schlumel explained this saying, the foolishness of man corrupts his way, yet his heart rages against Hashem. Okay, so now that's the end of our review. Uh, any other additional uh questions or points? Okay, now we get into my favorite part. Okay, this and this is uh I I think I said this before, but um, you know, the really the Murnevukim was meant to be learned in sequence. Uh, but that is something that to my shame I have not done. I've not started from the beginning and learned, you know, rigorously through all the way. But even still, there are passages in the Mur Navuchim that are of value independently. And I think out of everything in the Mur Navuchim, and this is a big statement, but like one of the top five candidates of like what I would share with people in isolation is this next part, this this uh excerpt from chapter 312. So this what he's gonna do is he's gonna outline the three types of ra in the uh in the in the world, and um and then either explicitly or implicitly explain why they have to be. Okay. And when I say ra, I know we've been using ra in a very technical sense, uh, but you have to remember that he that all of this is a response to Al-Razi. So he is simultaneously continuing on the development of the idea of Ra that we've talked about, which is you know, privation and uh and uh you know matter deviating from form, but he's also addressing this guy who's complaining that life is evil and life is bad. So so you have to like use your your your discernment to tell when the Rahmam is speaking in the objective philosophical framework and when he's talking in Razi's Al-Raziza distorted framework. Okay, and just as a as a um uh heads up here, we're probably gonna spend the the bulk of the time talking about the first type of ra because this is the type that I think people have the most difficult uh difficulty with. Okay, the explanation of this is that the raos that befall a person are of three kinds. Okay, so there are three kinds of ra uh that befall a person. Okay, the first kind is of ra is what befalls a person by virtue of the nature of generation and deterioration, or coming to be and passing away. That is, by virtue of his being endowed with matter. For on account of this, some people are afflicted with great disabilities and defects from birth, or these arise due to changes that occur in the elements, such as bad air, which I assume he means uh I put in there malaria. Um I assumed, you know, I know we call it malaria because they assumed that it came from bad air, even though we know that it's a mosquito-born uh illness. Um so uh, and I assume that that afflicted people in various parts of Africa. Um, I don't know, I don't know, is there malaria in Egypt? I can't remember. I'll have to ask uh Johnny if he has to take malaria pills when he went to Egypt. Um, such as bad air, lightning, landslides, etc. We have already maintained that, sorry, we've already explained that the divine wisdom has determined that there be no generation except through deterioration. Were it not for this individual deterioration, the generation of the species would not continue. Thus, the absolutes, the absolute beneficence and goodness and the overflowing of good are made clear. Okay, so let's just summarize this. Uh uh, which is um the first type of ra is that which stem sorry is uh is that which stems from the nature of physical matter uh which is uh which is uh subject to generation and deterioration. Okay. Um so so some of this is uh genetic and some of this is uh circumstantial. All right, so you for example you can be born with an illness or you can develop an illness due to conditions. Okay. Um so he then says that this type of ra is necessary um uh for there to be the perpetuity of uh you know of species. Okay. Um he says basically that if you you know God could have made a world in which there is only you know one uh man and woman, or I guess even just one human being, and there's no reproduction at all. But once you, or and same thing with cows and locusts and fish, but once you have reproduction, so you're gonna have coming into be. And I'm not exactly sure where in his uh like Aristotelian premises or philosophical premises, this is, but like he says you need to have coming to be and passing away, otherwise you would just have one individual and uh and and that's it. And we saw when we looked at Bracius last time that all of Hashem's statements about Vyaralakim Kitov pertain to the per the the um uh the what do you call it, the coming to being and passing away of the species. Uh sorry, the the let me state that again. All of the statements of good in the first pair of braces have to do with the existence of the species, which comes about through the coming to be and passing away of individuals within the species. Yeah, Steve.

SPEAKER_06 14:30

I I am sorry if I missed you if you said this, but um so tying this into the idea of raw that we were saying before, where raw is things I don't even want to say, I'm gonna say it the wrong way. Things like like changing and not staying with their essence. Like um, so is this kind of restating that? That like the the flip side is Tove, where the species exists as uh something that's continuous, but the raw is the yeah, is that is this kind of just I think that that I think that's accurate.

SPEAKER_02 15:02

Now, just two qualifiers. One is that um I you know Aristotle, who held that the universe was eternal, held that species have a permanent and enduring existence and don't change. So uh, and a lot of uh of Rishon and maybe all of them um uh held by that as well. So like they held that there was no such thing as something going extinct, and they certainly didn't have an idea of like a continual evolution. So I I don't know how this idea would change with our current views of what species are, and then also even the Rambaum later on is gonna say that uh that species only exist in the mind. Okay, so I I don't know exactly how to like square that, but loosely speaking, uh yeah, God wants there to be a variety of species. And in any given species at any given time, you know, you have, let's say again, cows, right? You have cows are are uh you know, the the form of cow is played out in generation after generation of individual material cows, you know, and that that the you know the the species of cow lasts uh and is embodied in in you know successive generations of individual cows. So yeah.

SPEAKER_06 16:11

Is the word raw being used only here in that way? Like when people say that they think that raw happens, he's he's now referring to people's sense of raw, not like that.

SPEAKER_02 16:21

I mean I think he I think he is referring to both because I think people do view death as bad, um, you know, death of individual members of species. But then also there is an objective raw of an individual being deprived of their form. When an individual dies, that is a ra for that individual, but for the Tova Brecies, it is good.

SPEAKER_06 16:47

Right, but I'm saying just could if you could just could you would you please um the the first sentence we said there's different kinds of raw that people see in the world, and this is yeah, like we how is he using the word there?

SPEAKER_02 16:59

Um I'd say that that I I do think he's using it in both ways. In other words, he's gonna he is gonna be talking about RZ's complaint by saying, like, all these things of all these things that you listed, you know, as raw, let's divide all of those into these three categories. But then this one is an objective raw for the individual. When an individual ages and dies, it's their matter deviating from their form. So that also is consistent with his definitions of raw from earlier.

SPEAKER_06 17:31

So so therefore the the the in this like um this part here, he's talking about what people perceive as raw, but some of it is actual raw and some of it is other stuff.

SPEAKER_01 17:42

That's my understanding. Yeah, okay. Yeah, Ayala, did that address your question?

SPEAKER_03 17:47

I was just curious specifically about word and alpha's individual deterioration and generation of the species would continue. Like, wouldn't all things be static?

SPEAKER_02 17:56

Yeah, all things would be static, right? Right. Yeah, I I I don't that's why I'm saying like I don't exactly know what he's envisioning um uh as the alternative to uh a world where there's generation to and deterioration. I mean, uh what I'm imagining, and you this will be kind of like supported in the next couple paragraphs, is that that they viewed the heavenly bodies as not subject to deterioration and um uh to generation and deterioration, and they viewed them as made out of a different kind of matter and perfect. So uh and obviously they felt that there was only one sun and one moon and one Mars, you know. So I think that that that would be the alternative in in the Ramam's view is that God could have made it so that instead of a human species with lots of individuals that come into being pass away, you'd have like this permanent, enduring one member of the species that just exists perfectly and doesn't deteriorate.

SPEAKER_03 18:55

And now we know that there's no matter without deterioration. Right, right.

SPEAKER_02 19:01

Yeah. Unless you want to go into the the uh what do you call it, the um the boundary between chemistry and physics. I don't know if there's something there that you would say like is uh is unchanging matter. I I don't know enough about how we would conceive of that here. Okay, so but now we get to the most important practical part. He says like this to wish one had flesh and bones immune and impervious to all the raos that matter undergoes is to unconsciously wish to unite opposites, to be both affected and unaffected. But what is unaffected does not develop, and it can never be more than one individual, not a species with many members. Um I'm gonna read one more paragraph and then we'll we'll reflect. What Galen said in the third part of his book, now just pause here, just introduce Galen. So Galen was probably the most famous physician who ever existed. Um he lived from I always forget this, I think it's from the second century. Galen. From yeah, the second century. Uh he lived in the second century, and his views basically dominated medicine from the second century until like the 1600s. Okay. Um, so he was a physician, but he was also a uh uh a philosopher. Um hold on just a second. I have to close this. Okay. Um what Galen said in the third part of his book, The Utility of Organs, is correct. Quote, do not delude yourself with the vain thought that it is possible for there to be generated from menstrual blood and sperm. Okay, that was their premise back then. They didn't understand, you know, uh sperm fertilizing eggs. They just said, well, women contribute the menstrual blood, men can men contribute the sperm, and then the combination makes a human being. So do not delude yourself with the vain thought that it is possible for there to be generated from menstrual blood and sperm, a living being that does not die or does not suffer pain or is perpetually in motion or is as radiant as the sun. That's where I get the uh the idea from here that like that I think the Ramam is viewing basically we have two options. Either man is made from the fifth element and is like the heavenly bodies where he doesn't change and is just like the one member that is perfect physically, or coming to being and passing away as we are now. So he says Galen was stating specific examples of the general general truth that whatever arises in matter develops as fully as the matter of its species allow. The disabilities afflicting members of a species reflect the limitations of its matter. The most that can develop from blood and sperm is man, who has the nature we know, alive, rational, and mortal. It is therefore impossible that this kind of raw not exist for this species. Okay, so I'm just gonna add a little bit to our notes here, okay, that this type of raw is necessary for the for there to be the perpetu uh the perpetuity of species, I'll say, as opposed to um God creating man like the ancients uh understood the heavenly bodies, okay, uh as individuals that that are not. Subject to generation and deterioration, uh, and are physically perfect and permanent. Okay. And then I want to clarify one more thing, also, okay, is this type of ra is inevitable due to the limitations of matter. Okay. And what I want to draw your attention to here is this specific example that he gives is he says, to wish one had flesh and bones immune and impervious to all the raos that matter undergoes is to unconsciously wish to unite opposites, to be both affected and unaffected. Okay. So I want to give an example. I uh there are two examples I like giving just to back this up here. Okay. Um, and I I try to give these examples because they are um uh relatable, okay, to students. Okay, so so so let me just uh think how I want to present this here. Okay, so give me one second. Okay, so example number one, okay, is iron throne versus plastic chair. Okay, so what are the the pros of iron versus plastic? In other words, an iron chair versus a plastic chair, what would be the uh the the the the advantages to having an iron throne versus a plastic chair? Just list them out.

SPEAKER_06 23:46

More durable?

SPEAKER_02 23:48

Yeah, durable stable. Stable, okay. Uh right, you know, I don't know if this fits into those other two, but could like can hold more weight. Um better looking. Yeah, better looking, okay, okay, fine. But then what are the cons? Heavier. Yeah, heavier, okay, probably more costly. Um prone to rust? Yeah, prone to rust. Um, I think uh prone to to temperature uh fluctuations. Okay.

SPEAKER_06 24:29

Um the freezing chair.

SPEAKER_02 24:31

Yeah, the freezing chair, uh, or if it's in the sun, it gets really, really hot. Okay, so now what are the pros of plastic versus iron? So it's pretty much the opposite, right? Is that plastic is lighter, cheaper, uh, easier to make. I mean, those are those are related here, um, movable. Okay, fine. Um, and then what are the cons? Uh is not as durable, uh, you know, cheaper looking, um, easier to to you know, melt, I guess, right? Fine. Okay. So now here's the question. Okay, what would you say to a person who wanted to have a chair with all the pros of both iron and plastic, but none of the cons of either? What would you how would you respond?

SPEAKER_06 25:25

Not possible.

SPEAKER_02 25:26

Yeah, not possible, right? So every kind of matter, by definition, has different properties. Okay, that's what it means to be different kinds of matter. Is matter has certain properties that other matter doesn't, okay? And those properties afford advantages and disadvantages in different different circumstances. Okay. Um so here's another example. Okay, and I I go back and forth about which example I like. Is either you can take your pick, okay, is either ice cream or chocolate. Okay. So so the you know, part of the pleasure um is the melting point, okay, that uh it melts in your mouth or when you lick it, okay. But that itself is also a a uh a liability, okay, i.e. it melts uh you know if it's too hot. Okay. So if you want to design ice cream or chocolate that that only has the pros and not the cons, it's not possible. Okay. And if you find a way to make it possible, it will have other cons. Okay. That's the nature of matter. All right. And then his third exam, the third example is the one that the Ramu gave, is is like, you know, so I'll is flesh. Okay, so I'll put this in a um in a uh uh form of a question, okay, is is you know uh what would it take for us I guess not what would it take, what would be the liabilities of having flesh that could not be injured, um uh yeah, that could not be injured. So what what would it have to be in order to not be injured? Or what would be the the downsides? Yeah, tomorrow.

SPEAKER_05 27:31

Um I don't know exactly what that would look like, but it probably couldn't be the same stuff that it's made of and maybe could grow.

SPEAKER_02 27:37

Yeah, right, is that that it would need to be other material, okay, uh, and likely wouldn't be able to grow in the same way. Okay, so I'm thinking like lobsters that I guess need to like develop an exoskeleton and then grow to um to capacity and have to like shed it or whatever. Uh so it wouldn't be able to grow in the same way, and probably not as flexible, okay. Um uh uh right. So in other words, same thing. So so the the the bottom line here is that all material, all matter, okay, has has limitations, has limits, okay, and those limits yield good and bad. And uh the only way to not have these limitations is to not be made of physical matter, okay. Um, so this is this is what I'm trying to stress here. So just if I had to like summarize this, the three kinds of raw that befall a person. So the first type is ra that stems from the the nature and inherent limitations of being physical and subject to generation and deterioration. Okay, so that's the uh uh uh that's the uh that's the overall category. Okay, uh SC says reminds me of Oliver Berkman on settling.

SPEAKER_06 29:17

I have to go, uh I I I remember the uh the the the upshot of the passage that you're talking about, uh, but I don't remember is does that have to do with the fact that like people view it as settling when they accept the cons of something, but like well, I think he was talking specifically in relationships, and people don't want to settle, but they want someone who's really adventurous and also stable. He said in your imagination, you can have somebody who's totally spur of the moment and also completely predictable and reliable, but in real people, it's they can't coexist in the way that they can in your imagination.

SPEAKER_02 29:53

Right, yeah, yeah. So, and that's the key phrase here is is the uh is the unconsciously wishing to unite opposites, okay? Is that anytime you find yourself yearning for matter that does this but doesn't do that, if you really think about it, at the end of the day, you're gonna get to either a particular instance of wishing to unite opposites, of wanting something to be both soft and hard, or wanting something to be both sharp and dull, right? Like if you cut yourself on a knife, it's annoying. But like if you say, Oh, I wish I wouldn't cut myself on a knife, well, you would want a knife that's not sharp, you know? So like you can't have something sharp and dull at the same time, you know. Um, and ultimately that's gonna boil down to I wish this thing were both physical and not physical. Okay. So, so uh just to now uh universalize this, is um hold on a second here, is why does this type of ra have to exist? And the answer is once you say that God's will is there, is is for there to be a physical universe, then this type of ra must exist in some form. Okay, and you can quibble about like if you think you can design a better material universe, so then go ahead and try. Um, and we could talk about whether, I mean, the Ram is going to say later on in the chapter. Uh, I mean, he in fact he already said it a little bit. He said that um that the disabilities affecting members of a species reflect the limitations of its matter. The most that can develop from blood and sperm is man who has the nature we know, alive, rational, and mortal. It is therefore impossible that this kind of ra now exists for the species. So the Ramam's premise here, which he will say later on, is that this is the best possible physical world that there is. And I know that students that I teach have a hard time with this because they think to themselves, well, why can't God have just designed a physical world in which this is not possible? I personally think that that's a very childish way of thinking. That in order to really um under to really state that, you really have to understand the entire nature of the physical world. Okay, what it reminds me of, and I'm not a computer guy, computer software guy, programmer, but like I uh, you know, people who are computer programmers or software designers, I'm sure are faced with various forms of this all the time, where their client asks them, well, change this. Well, certain things you can change very easily, but certain things are due to the limitations of the software or the hardware. And either the only way to change this is to change around the entire program, or the only way to change this is to have a completely new or different software, which then creates other limitations, or completely different hardware, which has other limitations. So, like if you really understood the programming language and the software, you know, and the hardware that you're working with, you would understand why these limitations are necessary. But for the person who is a layman who just wants a certain product, it's very easy to imagine, well, just do this, you know. So now ramp up the scale and talk about the entire universe. And um, you know, and like uh I think that's uh that is a very, very audacious ask to say, well, why can't God just design physics differently so that it all works out in in my favor in the way that I want? You know, um, and uh again, look, it's easy to imagine, but it's difficult to uh uh to uh you know to to have in reality. Um I actually want to give two more examples here. I actually meant to um uh to bookmark this. So Rabbi Natan Slivkin, uh who known formerly as the the zoo rabbi, but last couple decades, the rationalist Jew has a good two good examples in an article titled Back Pain and Toothache. Okay. So he says like this, and this is from the beginning of the article. Recently I received an email from someone who wanted help with responding to a kid, not his, with problematic theological views. And you have to like look at the quote-unquote problematic. Um, the kid had told him that his that his back pain was because of his evolutionary origins. The person asked the kid if he thinks that we came from monkeys, and the kid said yes. Yet the Torah, this person pointed out, says that God created man, not monkeys. I think the person was a little dismayed when I responded by saying that the kid was correct. We when we say a bracha on bread, we say Hamoti Laha minha arts, that Hashem took the bread out of the ground. That doesn't mean that Hashem plucked a loaf of bread out of the ground. It means that he made a world that could produce bread. The same goes for the description of the creation of man. Furthermore, note how in the Torah man is created on the same day as animals. Why can't we get our own day? The Rishonim explain that the point is that man began as an animal with the potential to rise above that status. Uh, but it's not just that the Torah can be reconciled with man being having evolved from an ancestor in the monkey family, it's that evolution actually solves a serious theological difficulty. Now, here's the example number one. Back pain is not just a medical problem, it's a theological problem. Lower back pain is the leading cause of disability worldwide. Over 80% of people experience it during their lifetime. It causes more people to leave the workforce than any other chronic condition. Now, if you believe that God designed man from scratch with infinite wisdom and a perfect design, how do you account for this very widespread defect? It's a problem. Okay, so what's the answer? He says like this But if God used a different system for creating life, then it's not a defect. It's merely an inherent limitation of an extraordinary system of creative wisdom, as reverse refers to evolution. It would be just like Lego models have little bumps all over them and can break. This does not detract from them, but rather is an inherent limitation of the wonder of creating things from Lego. So too, when you have extraordinary laws of nature that can transform energy into matter and into life and into the incredible diversity of species on this planet, the inherent limitation is that creatures are bound by the forms from which they developed. A land mammal can evolve into a whale, but it will have to come back to the surface to breathe. And a quadruped can evolve into a biped, but there will eventually be strain on the lower back. Okay, so you see from here that we're not just talking about a snapshot of a particular, like in my examples that I gave with um plastic and iron, um, you're just looking at a snapshot in time of two materials and talking about the advantages or disadvantages. But when we talk about life, biological life, we have to take into account that Hashem created the world in a way where somehow, uh, you know, he made it so that organic life emerged from inorganic matter and that organic life started from single-celled organisms and then became this you know diversity of species that that continues to evolve, and that in order to have a uh a mammal that walks upright, which according to um you know uh uh both scientists and according to my understanding of Torah, like man walking upright is you know somehow inherently related to like our ability to think and reason to have a telemelochine. One of the the limitations of that is you're gonna be going from a quadruped to a biped and you're gonna be putting weight on the lower back, and there's gonna be back pain, you know. So it really is a is a uh uh a you know, it it's a I wouldn't call the back pain itself a feature, but it is not a bug. It is the it is the necessary limitation of the feature of having evolution to get to this point. And he gives one more example that's related. He says, Over the last few days I've been suffering from terrible toothache. Today I'm off to have an impacted wisdom tooth removed, which my dentist suspects to be the cause of my pain. When I told my 89-year-old mother, bless her, she asked me why God made us with wisdom teeth, which have no benefit and cause so much pain. I replied, because we evolved from ape men with much larger jaws from whom for whom wisdom teeth were functional, right? Uh oh, she replied. Um, so uh I'll finish reading the article. She wasn't happy with my answer. I remember when at the launch of my book on this topic, The Challenge of Creation, Judaism's Encounter with Science, Cosmology, and Evolution, my mother was absolutely horrified to discover that the book was about accepting evolution. Eventually, she decided that she would have to find a way not to not let it get in the way of her love for her son. Now, she said, if you want to believe that you are descended from monkeys, fine, but don't tell me that I am. So, so that's another example, is that we can get really annoyed by our wisdom teeth, but when we think about what needed to go into the evolution of species to produce the body that we have, the fact that there will be certain cases of pain or even disease or even death from wisdom teeth is a necessary limitation of matter. And that gets us back to the very last paragraph in this part of the Rambam. He says, like this He says, Uh, yet you will find that the Ra'os of this kind that befall human species are exceedingly few and occur only rarely. For you will find cities standing for thousands of years that have never been flooded or burned. Likewise, thousands of people are born in complete health, and one with a disability is born only as an anomaly. And if one insists and refuses to say an anomaly, then it is still exceedingly rare. Not one in a hundred, nor even one in a thousand of those born in a state of soundness. So this is his last point here, which is that that despite the existence of this type, sorry, not I shouldn't say despite the existence, is even though this type of raw necessarily exists, it always forms a very small percentage in every realm. Okay, so for example, there are way fewer birth defects than healthy births, and way fewer cities that are destroyed by natural disasters uh uh than than cities that aren't uh uh etc. Okay, so that is the end of type one of Ra. Okay, and I'll let me give one more example of this, uh, which is a very, very emotionally loaded example. And I'm going to give an example here, knowing that I am not knowledgeable enough in uh in science to um to fully flesh this out, uh no pun intended. Um but um but I think that the the way that I am thinking about this uh is still true, even if the particulars might not be true, okay, which is uh cancer. Okay. So so why why does cancer exist?

SPEAKER_07 40:40

What would you say? What can we say?

SPEAKER_03 40:50

Because cells regenerate.

SPEAKER_02 40:52

Okay, cells regenerate, that's good. Yeah, Steve.

SPEAKER_06 40:56

Yeah, because cells have to grow and you know DNA needs to get copied. And it can't be done perfectly all the time because that's just a limitation that's that's part of ROM.

SPEAKER_02 41:07

Okay, right, okay, good. So so my understanding, and and you please correct me if I'm wrong here, is that that there are um there are you know, I guess there are two ways for organisms to reproduce and grow, okay? Making exact copies of of uh uh of cells or making different copies. Okay, so you could have cells making perfect copies, but then there would be no evolution, okay? Um or like I mean the limit certain types of growth as well, okay, right? Um so cells have random mutations which result in differences, okay, uh between individuals. Okay. Some of these differences provide advantages which are then um I guess which which then you know um I don't know how to state this in the most scientifically accurate terms here, but but which then result in in those individuals being fitter. Okay, and those advantage. Advantage, yeah, so they provide advantages which which all right, which I'll just say would which then help the the species evolve, okay. But the the the downside okay of random mutations is that there are also disadvantageous mutations, okay uh and that is bad for those individuals, but a necessary um a necessary outcome of of the system. Okay, now again, this is a very, very like elementary explanation, and I don't think we even understand fully like how you know cancer does work, uh, or what makes things mutate in ways that are detrimental or go or go haywire. But my point though is that that if we did understand these things, we would understand why it has to be. And and here's where I'm gonna transition into an example that I do know about, okay, which is an analogy. This is the this is in my top five mushalim, I think, the the traffic light mushle. Okay. Um, I all remember this. Okay, so I'm gonna skip down to the end of this for a second here. So um the uh the premise of this mushroom is that Hashem works through systems, okay. Uh anyone want to give a uh uh elementary definition of what a system is

SPEAKER_01 44:28

Okay, maybe I'm just not hearing.

SPEAKER_04 44:30

Um I can give it a try. Um I would say that it's it's um some unifying principles that are expressed in different particulars, like a lot of it in particular.

SPEAKER_02 44:41

Okay. Unifying principles that are expressed in particulars. I think that is uh that that's a fair that's a fair shot. The way I would think of it, which I think is just a a more uh uh dynamic definition, is um parts ordered toward an end. Okay, and the example I have here, I have three examples: the school system, which is comprised of students, teachers, administrators, custodians, building desks, schedule, and it's ordered toward the end of education, okay, or the clock, which is numbers with a face and hands and batteries and gears and stuff ordered towards the end of keeping and displaying accurate time. And then you have the traffic system, cars, pedestrians, laws, street signs, roads, etc. And the purpose of the traffic system is to ensure safe and efficient travel. And you want to maximize both uh safe and uh and efficient. Okay. Um, so um, so here's the thought experiment. Okay. Imagine you go to the Wild West, uh, middle of nowhere, or if you want to use a modern example, uh, is Burning Man, okay, where they go to the the uh a desert and they set up a community, a temporary community, and you want to set up houses and you want to make the most minimal traffic system possible with the fewest components, okay? So what would the most minimal system be? So the most minimal system would be no system whatsoever, okay, is you just have individual houses and you have no roads. And if you want to get from from my house to your house, you just drive straight to the to that house. Now, that has the advantage of being a minimal system, but it's clearly not the most efficient because roads are more efficient than driving on dirt. And it's also not the safest because people can crash into each other because there's no nothing stopping a car from crossing paths with another car. Okay. So the next layer of adding one level of complexity would be one-directional roads, which is that cars can only go on roads, but the roads only go in one direction from each house to every other house. Okay. So that is safer because now you're not gonna have cars crossing paths, but it's also very inefficient because you have to build a ton of roads and you have to build, you know, many miles of roads to connect from each house to every other house. And it's gonna be very hard to like not make them cross paths. Okay, so that's maximizing safety, but not efficiency. Okay, so how about a grid system where you like Manhattan? So you have a grid and all the houses are on grids, and there's intersections, but uh, but you know, maybe say like stop signs where it's four-way or whatever, traffic circles. Okay, uh, but there's no restrictions where you have to actually like stop. Okay, so that might be better, but let's say uh a system that would like, you know, um uh to me, I don't know, according to terms of data, but like I feel like red lights and green lights are really the best system. So you have a grid with red lights and green lights where people take turns stopping and going. Okay. Yeah, SD.

SPEAKER_06 47:44

Circles are really a better system, but we could discuss better different fine.

SPEAKER_02 47:48

Okay. Uh yeah. Uh I I guess my assumption uh is that that uh if circles were truly a better system, then I guess I will my my question is why in let's say in cities, in crowded cities, I wonder why they're not uh you know implemented there. I don't know, but whatever. For for our purposes, then uh we'll uh we'll have uh traffic lights. Okay. So now setup question here. Okay. Are red lights good or bad?

SPEAKER_01 48:18

How would you answer that question? Uh, this is again clearly a setup.

SPEAKER_02 48:22

Bad you say bad. Okay, but we said that they were we said that they were uh better than than not having red lights. So what's the uh accurate answer? Yeah. Ruka?

SPEAKER_00 48:39

I think they're neither good or bad.

SPEAKER_02 48:42

Okay, I wouldn't say that they're neither good or bad, because I think we we just again you you can disagree with my uh my analogy, but I think we showed that they're necessary.

SPEAKER_00 48:50

Yeah, necessary, like it's good if you don't want to crash into somebody, and it's bad if you're impatient and you need to get somewhere.

SPEAKER_02 48:58

Ah, okay. So here's how I would put it, which is like this is they're good for the system as a whole, but but bad for individuals in individual cases. Okay, so for example, is like you know, you might be late or inconvenienced, uh or you know, or um or the light might not serve a purpose like at 3 a.m. You know, when it's uh still illegal uh to run a red light, um, but there's no there's no risk of uh of uh of an accident. Okay. Um you can ask me about my time when I got stopped in Wyoming at a red light that I was there. I think I stopped, it was 10 minutes or something like that. I got to look at how it was, and it was really really a test for me about like how how long am I gonna wait here? But yeah, okay. Um, Ruth, I don't know if your hand is left up from before or if you had a new question. Um, okay, so now here's here's the key question. This is all set up for this one question, okay. Is is what would you say to someone, and this is gonna sound familiar, who wanted to reap all the advantages of the red light, green light system, okay, but never be caught at a red light when it would be inconvenient. I think the answer is obvious, which is impossible, right? Is that that so this is what I'm I'm coining the term red light incidents are a necessary part of of a system, uh of the system, okay, and are inevitable, okay. And even if you want to say that traffic circles are better, getting slowed down by a traffic circle is inevitable, which you're gonna have to get slowed down because traffic circle by definition takes longer than just barreling straight through it, you know. So you are going to have to to have to suffer that that consequence here, okay. Um so what is the if this is the mushroom, what is the nim shawl? So the nimshaw is that all systems have inherent limitations and uh sorry, all systems, let me just say this, all systems, even the best systems have inherent limitations, and it is irrational to demand the benefits of the system without being subject to those limiting cases. Okay. Um and that is why going back to our notes here, that is why the the upshot here is that um that it is impossible to be a physical being and and and and receive all the benefits of this existence without being subject to the limitations and ra of physicality. And that is the end of type one.

SPEAKER_01 52:23

Any questions on this?

SPEAKER_02 52:30

Now you could say, why did God have to make a physical universe? But what's the answer to that question based on the Mormon 313 is we can't know. It is God's will to have created a physical universe, God's will or God's wisdom, and that's the most that we can say. You can't say why did God create a physical universe? And if you want to talk about that, then go to uh listen to my shear on 313. Okay. Second type of Ra is going to be very, very quick. One paragraph. The second type of kind of Ra is what human beings inflict on one another when they dominate one another. These Raos are more numerous than those of the first kind, and their causes are many and well known. They too originate from us, though the victim may be defenseless. Even so, in any city to be found anywhere in the world, this kind of ra is not at all widespread among its inhabitants. Rather, its occurrence too is rare, as when one person ambushes another to kill him or to rob him by night. Only in major wars is violence so widespread so as to affect the general populace, and even then, such events do not form the majority of occurrences upon the earth taken as a whole. Okay, so this is type two. So type two is ra we inflict on one another. Okay. And why does this ra have to exist? Ram doesn't say this explicitly, but why does this raw have to exist?

SPEAKER_03 53:54

Because humans are composed of matter.

SPEAKER_02 53:56

Yeah, because humans are composed of matter, okay, and and I think you need one more thing in the case of humans uh that accounts for this, which is not true of animals, which are also composed of matter.

SPEAKER_05 54:10

And have free choice.

SPEAKER_02 54:11

And have free free choice, right? Okay, is the only way to to not have this kind of raw is if we weren't physical or didn't have free choice. Okay. Um and then he says, even still, this type of ra is in the minority and uh and and is only I guess um predominant in regions that are rife with uh you know that they're going through a period of time, you know, rife with war and crime. Okay. But in the majority of cases, like in other words, take it statistically, like even cities with a very high rate of murder and theft, you know, there are far fewer thefts than non-thefts or murders than non-murders, except in cases of extreme war and conflict, you know. So on the whole, there's more Tove than Ra in these categories.

SPEAKER_01 55:17

Okay, that's type two. Ready for type three? Yes.

SPEAKER_04 55:30

I don't know, slander, that type of stuff that's maybe uh or or even lesser things or something.

SPEAKER_02 55:36

Yes, I think you would include that as well. Yeah, and and those are more, you know, the the easier the raw is to commit and the more abstract the harm, then uh the more prevalent it's gonna be. Yeah. Okay. Type three, the third kind of raw is what people bring upon themselves.

SPEAKER_06 55:54

Wait, wait, wait, that was so interesting. Could you say that again?

SPEAKER_02 55:57

Yeah, is that the more um uh can I say it again? The the the uh the easier it is for the raw to do and the more abstract the harm is, then the then the more prevalent it's gonna be. So lash and hara is something that is very is very much easier to speak than to carry out a murder. And uh it's much harder to grasp the the far-reaching consequences of lush and hara than it is to uh appreciate that killing someone is is is bad. And so those are gonna be more right.

SPEAKER_06 56:27

Also the repercussions are less obvious because it's abstract.

SPEAKER_02 56:31

Right. Same thing with with uh with bad parenting, with bad education, you know, like those types of things are very, very abstract, and those are gonna be very prevalent. Right. Okay, thank you. Yeah, okay. The third kind of ra is what people bring upon themselves from their own actions, and this is the most common. These raos are far more numerous than those of the second kind. Over Raus of this kind, all people cry out, and it is this kind, and it is the kind in which you will scarcely find anyone who does not wrong himself, save a few. This is the kind which the one afflicted truly deserves blame. Sorry, for which the one afflicted truly deserves blame. And one may say to him, as scripture says, so he quotes a bunch of um uh sukin from Shlomohamelach, this has come to you from your own doing. Uh actually it's not from Shlomo Malach. And it is said, he who does it destroys his own soul. Uh Mishlay 632. Regarding this kind of Ra, Shlomo said, The foolishness of man corrupts his way, yet his heart rages against Hashem. Mishlay 19.3. Uh, he also made clear regarding this kind of raw that it is the person's own doing. As he said, This alone have I found, that God made man upright, but they have sought out many schemes. Kohellas 729. And those schemes are what brought these raws upon them. And regarding this kind, it is said, for affliction does not come from the dust, nor does trouble spring from the ground. EO5-6. And immediately afterward, it is explained that man is the one who brings this kind of raw into existence. As it is said, for man is born to trouble. Okay, so let me just summarize this, but the he has more to say here. Okay, so this is Ra we inflict on ourselves through our bad decision making. Okay, this is the most pro uh prevalent uh of all. Okay, now question is why? All right. So that's where he shifts into something which is going to occupy the rest of the chapter. Okay, so uh let's actually, I might want to read a lot and let him uh let us get the big picture here. He says like this This kind of raw is consequent upon all vices, that is, excessive desire for eating, drinking, and sexual intercourse, and engaging in them with excess in quantity or in a disordered manner or with food of poor quality. This becomes the cause of all diseases and afflictions, both physical and psychological. So you see from here, by the way, that a lot of things that we would have chalked up to raw of type one really is the result of raw type three, meaning the fact that we're physical makes it possible, but it's our own poor decisions that make this type of raw um uh, you know, that actually like bring about this type of raw for ourselves. So for example, you know, if you have, you know, uh bad cholesterol, right? That it's true that that stems from the fact that you're a physical being, but can't but you know, is it really outside of your control, or is it because of your your decisions that you make about eating and exercise, you know? Um, or let's say like you have um, you know, you are uh, you know, you're whatever, let's say you're you're you have other age-related diseases, you know, maybe it's a result of entropy, or maybe it's because you've only gotten five to six hours of sleep for decades of your life. And like you, you know, if you had prioritized sleep, then you would have uh you would have not had uh been subject to these uh types of uh stresses on your body. Okay, so he says like this um as for bodily illnesses, they are obvious. Okay, so that those are the examples I just gave. Okay, as for diseases of the soul resulting from this harmful regimen, they arise in two ways. Uh actually I'm gonna make another paragraph here. The first is the change that necessarily befalls the soul on account of changes in the body, insofar as the soul is a bodily faculty, as it has already been said, that the dispositions of the soul are consequent upon the temperament of the body. Okay, so that's very abstract, but in other words, um people who you know, we said earlier that even though the soul is non-physical, it operates through a physical brain, through uh senses, through the psyche, through the imagination. And the more a person indulges in um in excuse me, in physical or psychological vices, the more it's gonna affect the operation of their soul. So, for example, people who are you know um you know uh constantly involved in uh a hedonistic lifestyle. Oh, actually, hold on, I'm just trying to um yeah, okay, let's do let's let's uh use this as an example. Like let's say you have someone who is um who is uh is prone to immediate pleasure seeking and avoiding immediate pain, okay, which is a default wiring of of uh of the psyche, okay. So not only will that affect your decisions, but that will affect the operation of your mind. Why? Because when you're involved in learning, uh then you're going to be prone to avoiding anything that takes too long to think about or that involves frustration. And you're gonna latch on to any ideas that are appealing to you, you know. So it'll affect the operation of your mind because you've habituated yourself to the pursuit of pleasure and to the avoidance of immediate pain. Okay, so that's that's I think what he means when he says that that it affects the soul, uh, which is the bodily faculty. Or let's say, for example, is the more you're involved in in the physical, the more you're going to, the more your thinking is going to be skewed in very abstract areas that pertain to things that that like are psychologically attractive. So when it comes to, for example, God, you know, thinking about God, then your your thinking is going to be tainted by your attachment to physicality in a way that's going to like distort your knowledge. All right. But he goes on. The second way is that the soul becomes habituated to things that are not necessary, and this becomes a strong disposition in it so that it acquires the trait of craving what is necessary, neither for the preservation of the individual nor for the preservation of the species. This craving is something without limit, whereas all necessities are defined and finite, but the superfluous has no end. If you I love this line, if you desire your vessels to be made of silver, then gold would be more fitting, and others make them of crystal, and perhaps they could be made of emerald or ruby or whatever else can be found. Okay, and he goes on. Every ignoramus of corrupt thought never ceases to be in grief and anguish over not being able to attain what some other person has attained in the way of luxuries, and most often he exposes himself to great dangers, such as sea voyages and the service of kings, his whole aim being to attain those luxuries that are not necessary. When misfortunes befall him along those paths he has taken, he complains of God's judgment and decree, and when he begins to curse fate, he's astonished at its lack of justice. Why did it not help him to acquire great wealth so that he might obtain much wine to keep himself always drunk, and a number of concubines adorned with varieties of gold and precious stones to arouse him to intercourse beyond his capacity, so that he might experience pleasure, as if the purpose of existence were nothing but the pleasure of this base creature alone? The error of the multitude has gone so far as that they ascribe to the creator a lack of power in this existence that he brought into being with this nature that necessitates, according to their imagination, great Raos, since this nature does not assist every person of base character to achieve his baseness, so that his corrupt soul might re might reach the limit of its desire, which has no limit, as has already been explained. Okay, so in other words, basically Misley and Kohalas, okay, he's saying that the more you indulge in in what is superfluous, then the more you're going to seek it out. And either you will seek things that you think will make you happy, but really won't make you happy, and then you'll complain about God and the lack of justice and say that that you can't get what you want and woe is me, my life is miserable because I'm not getting like you know, the latest uh iPhone or you know, a house with this kind of description or whatever, or as much money as my neighbor. You know, so you that's like a Kohellas type problem, or my money's not making me happy, or I'm depressed, or like I have these unrealistic beauty standards, or I have these unrealistic relationship standards, and you're you're chasing all these excess fantasies and it's making you unhappy. Or you'll face Mishlei problems, which is that you'll pursue things in ways that are foolish and sort of short-sighted, and you'll you'll uh you'll get consequences for yourself, and that'll make you miserable, or more likely you'll end up with both. Okay. So that's a whole other category of causing type three of raw is the pursuit of things you don't need in ways that are are foolish and that just bring about consequences that make you more attached to pursuing those things in the same ways and make your life progressively worse. Okay. Um, so that's that's uh uh a nice little uh Ramam on Mishlain Kohalas there. Um sidebar. Um there are people who point to the two examples the Ramam gives here. That he says, um uh every ignoramus of corrupt thought never ceases to being brief in anguish over not being able to attain some uh what some other person has attained in the way of luxuries, and most often he exposes himself to great dangers, such as sea voyages and the service of kings. Okay, those two examples, they point to that and say that the Ramam gave those both for biological reasons. Can anyone name what the two biological uh not I say biological, biographical, uh biographical reasons? Anyone know what the two biographical reasons are for sea voyages and the service of kings?

SPEAKER_03 1:06:02

Yayala He lost his brother at when he was at sea, right? And then he himself was like serving a king most of his time.

SPEAKER_02 1:06:11

Exactly. So the two major um, I mean, not comparable, the two major uh tragedies in Ramam's life were the loss of his brother at sea. So his brother was a merchant and was sailing on a ship in the Indian Ocean. And uh it, I forgot if it if it sunk or if it was uh seized by pirates or something like that. And the Ramam lost his brother and all of his brother's wealth and his wealth. And then that in turn forced him to go in, you know, the Ram, the brother, his brother had been supporting him and he'd been, you know, kind of making passive income, which allowed him to learn and and be involved in Torah. And then when that happened, not only was it a huge personal blow and he was depressed for a year, but he also then had to go into becoming a physician for the Sultan. And if you've read the Ramam's account of what that life was like, he barely had any time for anything and was just exhausted constantly. So I don't think the Ramam would necessarily I I don't know actually, but I I I don't know if the Ramam is saying that part of the problem was that he and his brother were pursuing wealth beyond what they needed. I don't know if he's saying that, or if he's just giving these as examples of something. But it is interesting that those are the two examples that he gives. And it both of those directly affected him and made his life worse. Um yeah, okay. Um, so then he goes, Ram goes on and he talks now about the good. He says, but the virtuous and the wise, by the way, I'm gonna go a little bit over time. Uh yeah, SP.

SPEAKER_06 1:07:38

He could certainly be saying that those were those are things that that are bad for a person. They might have been doing it for different reasons, but they're things that people do, and he suffered losses from them.

SPEAKER_02 1:07:48

Right. That is definitely that is uh definitely possible. Um, yeah, and uh, you know, it is interesting though, because I I feel like I've seen the Ramw give the Sea Voyages example um maybe one or two other times, and it was like really dangerous. And I do wonder, did was he critical of his brother pursuing wealth to the point where he was willing to like jeopardize his life? And you know, his brother also had a family, I think, you know. So, like, I do wonder if it is a a subtle critique. Um, um, I'm sure there's people who's who have written about that, but yeah, it is possible that it's not a critique. Okay, um, so then he goes on and talks about um uh transitions into talking about God's goodness. Uh, he says, Yeah, uh, but the virtuous and the wise have already come to know the wisdom of this existence and understood it, as David made clear, saying in Tilm 25, 10, all the paths of Hashem are kindness and truth for those who keep his covenant and his testimonies. He means that those who have preserved the nature of existence and the commandments of the Torah and known the purpose of both, to them the aspect of kindness and truth in everything has become clear. Therefore, they have made their aim that which was intended for them as human beings, namely apprehension of truth. Uh, in other words, they don't seek out all these psychological and physical pleasures, they seek truth. And because of the body's necessity, they seek what it requires, bread to eat and garment to wear. That's uh Jakob of now again. This is without luxuries. Um, this is the easiest of things and may be attained with little effort when one is content with what is necessary. Whatever difficulty and burden you see in this matter upon us is on account of the superfluous. In seeking what is not necessary. Oh, here's another great line. In seeking what is not necessary, even finding what is necessary becomes hard. For the more one's yearnings are attached to luxuries, the harder the matter becomes, and one's energies and resources are spent on what is not necessary, so that what is necessary is not found. Okay, just take a moment to think about this here, because I think we uh who live in one of the wealthiest nations in history, I think have become accustomed to so many luxuries that we view them as necessities. So the example I always think of uh is maybe just because I read an article about it. Um, anyone know what the number one complaint of Americans is when they vacation in Europe during the summer? Lack of air conditioning. Lack of air conditioning, right? So the funny thing is like, you know, Americans go, I guess in Europe they just don't have as much air conditioning, and Americans complain and complain and complain. Now, just stop and consider the fact that air conditioning is a very, very, very recent thing. Okay, and for most of history and for most of the world right now, when it's the hot season, you're hot. That's just how it is. That's just the nature of uh of the world. Yet we've become, we Americans have become so accustomed to conditioned air that when we travel across the ocean to luxuriate in these like European countries, we complain about the fact that the air is not conditioned to the point where we're comfortable, you know? So like take that, or take the fact that like you know, we can turn. I mean, I you know, I I actually I don't know what changed in me, maybe because I've been learning this, uh, but like uh a couple of months ago. No, yeah, it was in February uh in no in January actually. No, it's Pesach, Pesock time. Yeah, Pesach, hold on, Pesach. I woke up uh and um uh on on a Yom Tov morning and I after Daviding I made Kiddish and I was having like uh I remember I was having um guacamole with matzah and tomato jam with burrata and I had wine and I was thinking to myself I'm living like a king, like I just got up out of a bed in my own room in a house with multiple rooms with comfortable temperature with a blanket and a pillow, and then I went and I got a bottle of wine that was produced in Israel when you know there are all these things on the Holochos of Pesoch about like what do you do if you don't have wine? Because there were so many centuries of Ashkenazim who just didn't have access to wine, you know, and I have like all these bottles of wine, and like I'm eating avocado that was grown in some like remote place where avocado grows that was like shipped to me with like burrata, you know, with tomato jam that I made, with tomatoes that were cultivated to be perfect, that I made before Yom Tove in an oven that I just turn on with mozzarella that I don't even know how mozzarella is made, with olive oil that was pressed from olives, and I'm sitting at a table on a chair with like plastic silverware that I can just like use and throw away. You know, I'm just thinking like I'm living like a king, you know, and like it just struck me how much we take for granted. And I use running water, you know, and I had like it's crazy. But like you look at this one puzzle about Yaakovin just describing what he needed bread to eat and a garment to wear. He doesn't even mention like shelter to sleep in, you know, like and you look at all this and you look at at like how much luxury we take as necessities, like most families, you know, would say that they need a car. I mean, some people say they need two cars, most families would say that they need more than one bedroom. Like it's just we we're so, so, so, so like used to these things that like, and we suffer when we don't have them. But like it's just it just taking a moment to recognize what is an actual need and what is a want. Yeah, see.

SPEAKER_06 1:13:46

Um I agree completely. And I want to say also we're in a weird situation though, because the society is so wealthy that let's say when you say you need a car, you might not be able to go on foot anymore because everything has elevated and there's an interdependence that makes these things difficult. It's it is you're just kind of stuck in a totally different way.

SPEAKER_02 1:14:08

Yeah, right. I mean, I yeah, I I I agree. And uh, you know, it's just uh it it this is part of why another reason why in the time of Mashiach, when we have knowledge and we remove all these types of raw through our our wisdom, you know, the infrastructure of society is going to need to change in ways. Well, first of all, I mean, presumably we'll be able to have more abundant uh um production of even luxuries, but like, yeah, a lot of stuff has to change. Our society is not built uh around needs, it's built around want. Uh so yeah. Okay, uh, let's let's uh attempt to finish this uh because I think not not that these points are unimportant, but he he uh uh I I one time used the word Ramam waxing poetic, and someone got really mad at me. But the Ramam does sometimes use more words than is necessary to paint a fuller picture, and I think that's what he's doing here. Um, so you'll be the judge of that. He says, like this you ought to consider our situation in existence. The more necessary a thing is for a living being, the more abundantly it is found and the cheaper it is. And the less necessary it is, the less it is found and the more expensive it is. For example, what is necessary for a person is air, water, and food. But the necessity of air is greatest, since if it was absent from him for a few moments, he perishes. Whereas without water, he can survive only a day or two. And air is more available and cheaper without a doubt. The necessity of water is greater than the necessity of food, since if one drinks and does not eat, certain people can survive four or even five days without food. And you will find that in every city, water is more available and cheaper than food. The same pattern holds among foodstuffs. The more necessary, the more available and cheaper it is in that place than what is not necessary. As for musk, ambergris, which is some substance that was used for medicine, or that's I think that's what they thought, rubies and emeralds. I do not think that any person of sound mind Say again. Oh, perfume? Okay, yeah, I think it was also used in medicine, though, um, back then. Um, I do not think, or what they believe to be medicinal, I do not think that any person of sound mind believes that they are of great necessity to human beings except for medicine, and many herbs and minerals serve as substitutes for them and their like. This is the manifestation of the beneficence and goodness of God, even toward this frail living creature. As for the manifestation of his justice and his equalization among them, this is exceedingly clear. For within the domain of natural generation and deterioration, there is no individual of any species of animal that is distinguished from another individual of its species by a special faculty peculiar to it or by an additional limb. Rather, all the faculties, natural, psychic, and vital, and all the organs found in this individual are found in the other in an essential way. And if there is a deficiency, it is accidental due to something that has occurred that is not according to nature, and this is rare, as we've explained. That's talking about like genetic defects and stuff. Um, there is no superiority at all among individuals that follow the course of nature, except what necessarily results from the difference in the disposition of their respective matter, which is necessary for the nature of the matter of that species, without any intention directed at one individual rather than another. In other words, in the species, all the members of the species are essentially the same. And there are occasional cases of advantage or disadvantage based on the matter of that particular individual or the circumstances, but not anything wildly different. Okay. Um as for one person's having many sashes, sachets, sashets, sachets, I don't know how to pronounce that word, of musk and gold embroidered garments, while another lacks these superfluities of life, right? So that's what that's what the uh people point to is they say, how can you say that we're all equal? How come Elon Musk has almost a trillion dollars? So Ram says there is no wrong and injustice in this. The one who has attained these luxuries has not gained any addition to his essence and has merely attained a false imagining or a plaything. And the one who lacks these superfluities of life has not been deprived of anything essential. And then he quotes about the man he who gathered much had nothing over, and he who gathered little had no lack, each gathered according to what he could eat. Um, this is the prevailing condition at all times and in all places, and one should pay no attention to anomalies, as we've explained. Through these two considerations, God's beneficence toward his creatures becomes clear to you, in that he brings what is necessary into existence in his proper order, and in that he equalizes the individuals of each species at their creation. In accordance with this true consideration, the master of the wise said, uh, kiholder chav Mishpat, for all his ways are justice. And David said, All the paths of Hashem are kindness and truth, as we have explained. And David said explicitly, Hashem is good to all, and his mercies are over all his works. For bringing us into existence is the great and absolute good, as we've explained, and the creation of the governing faculty in living beings is the mercy shown toward them, as we have explained. So let me just summarize this in our notes, and then we will conclude for today. Um, so um, so type number three uh is raw we inflict on ourselves through a bad decision making. This is the most prevalent of all. And most of uh of it is uh sorry, um the ra uh occurs to our body and to our soul, uh and the raw to our soul is direct, okay, insofar as the soul operates through the body, okay, and uh indirect, uh insofar as the more we condition ourselves um to need luxuries, the more of our lives will be wasted in their pursuit, and the more um mishlac and cohellos fate we will suffer um as a consequent as a result. Um so then he he concludes and he says that uh in truth um Hashem created the world with everything necessary in proportion to how necessary it is, and if we moderated our desires and focused on what we need rather than on what we want, then we would find abundance and minimize uh this type of raw. Yeah. Okay, so so if we ask the question that we've asked before, okay, why does this ra have to exist? What's the answer to this as well? Same answer, okay. Same as as two is we are uh we are we are um composed of matter, which includes which includes the itzarhara, okay, and we're with that that's what makes us prone to these things, and uh we have free choice, okay. So the sum, the summary here, okay, is is and uh again, I pose this as a challenge. I don't think anyone's gonna challenge this, is like, you know, anytime you you note a ra, okay, you classify it into one of these three categories and ask yourself, you know, why is this necessary? And you'll find that like you know, you'll find that that this is part of the design of the universe, and most of it comes from our collective poor choices as human beings. Okay. Um and uh and the universe Hashem designed is good. That's the upshot. Okay. And you know, really we you know, maybe when we review this next time, I have to decide what we're gonna do next Friday, but when we review this, we'll we'll go through some more cases. But like, you know, people are bothered by some of the Rams cases here. Like, like, what about um you know, places where there is not enough water? You know, well, if you look at the places in Africa where there's not uh infrastructure for water, why is that? It's because the people who are in charge of uh who are the leaders are seeking luxuries and abusing their fellow human beings and not providing for them in ways that are are necessary. In fact, I just saw a um uh I just saw a Forbes, hold on, where is it? And I I I I'm this is not uh Forbes uh wealthy top twenty top ten. Um it was a a list of how the top ten most wealthy people and how much of the their money they've actually given away to charity, and it was like this alarmingly low number, except for Warren Buffett, and um I just calculated like the hold on, I gotta read it to you, even though I can't uh find the graphic. I calculated like what would happen if they gave away like 10%. Okay, like I added up all the the the wealth uh of of of the the top uh you know 10 wealthy people, 10% of that money would be 286.5 billion dollars. Okay. The total number of amount of their wealth uh on the list combined was two 2.865 trillion dollars, you know. So like like, and again, I'm not I'm not like making a political statement here about this, but I'm saying like there isn't there are enough resources to go around. That's that's clear, you know, but like it is the it is the fact that our society is messed up and that people use their bakira in bad ways that that allow so much raw to flourish, you know. Um, and so uh I would not blame God. I would uh I would you know take a look at ourselves before we uh we we take that step. Okay, I have to decide what we do next time. Uh I uh we went through the last part of this chapter kind of fast, and I have to decide whether there's more we should do here, but um, this might be the last installment of the Ram on the Major of Ra. And the next like large thing that we're going to tackle is moving back into the realm of Hajjgaha and going back into the safer Eov. Okay. Uh thank you for coming and uh have a good Chavez.

SPEAKER_03 1:24:54

Thank you. Thank you.

SPEAKER_02 1:24:55

Have a good chavez.