Jews and Non-Jews: A Jewish Philosophical View - Rabbi Dovid Gottleib

loving kindness and justice how it plays a role in creation of the world, imagine the world there is a an issue which is interesting to its own right but it's also relevant here and that is the difference between Jews and non-Jews and the way it appears to the outsider who's not well educated the Jewish worldview has a um has a hierarchy that humanity is divided into two groups and they'll call them the in-group and the out groupoup. It's a question of us and them which is supposed to be poisonous. And the idea that there is a creator who runs the world with both kindness and justice is something which seems to be to them anyway incompatible with the idea that humanity has upper group and the lower group. It smacks of the the um cast system in in India. It smacks of hereditary nobility in European countries. And it's supposed to be something which is objectionable. Now, um I want to set the the the uh the educational system or the the the philosophical system straight first and then we'll talk about in more detail about how the categories apply. Uh if you look at the first part of the of the way of God by Lucato, he traces this out in detail. It turns out that the two tiers of humanity is dead against God's interests and God tried repeatedly to overcome it and to institute homogeneous humanity and it was only the unwillingness of human beings which defeated God's purpose. So this comes in four and a half stages. The first stage is the garden of Eden. You had people there. They were ch faced by a challenge. Had they succeeded in the challenge that God put to them, then there would have been two groups. There would have been just them. Who would they have been? According to again, we're talking about Lutato, the way of God. According to them, this may be a little bit of surprise, but according to according to him and Calistic sources, Adam and Kava were Jews. Well, Jews, the whole totality of the Torah, all 630 commandments were addressed to them. The totality of 630 commandments are necessary to bring the world to its perfection, to its fullness, to its full development. That's why our section of history has the Jewish people operating in terms of the 630 commandments. Odam wasn't different. It was on a different level. The commandments addressed them in a different way. They were organized into a different integrated hole. But that subject, that information had to be integrated into the world. So their role essentially was the role of being Jews were playing the Jewish role in the world. And that would have been everybody. and it would have been over in less than 24 hours and there wouldn't have been an upper group and a lower group. That's what God set up. And had his original challenge been met, there wouldn't have been two groups. Okay? They failed. When they failed, they deteriorated and the whole world deteriorated. with them was a gigantic um degradation and undermining of the character and um purity and value of the world. One way to put it this is again Lutat's way of looking at it let's say in categorical terms there we we recognize um soul and body the spiritual and the material in the garden of Eden there was such a distinction also and then as a result of the transgression the whole of creation went down one step which means that if in their world you have a spiritual ual and immaterial. The world went down in such a way that what was material for them becomes spiritual for the new reality. A new material was created underneath. Their spirituality is out of reach. So now we're in a in a world where these are the two levels. Now since the original character of Ghana was the place in which human beings could realize the purpose of the world and now you've had this deterioration a new strategy has to be applied so as to complete this the the uh the the perfection of the world. So in the interim after the expulsion from Gaden until including Abraham was a period of time in which people could elevate themselves to the point where they represent that original reality not living in it but they represent that original reality and its relationship to the new reality. Ram Khal says that everyone could have done it. Not each one could have done it like Abraham. Everyone could have done it collectively. Everyone could have done together with Abraham everything that Abraham did. And then you would have had a single humanity which have raised themselves to the point of representing that original uh reality. And then that whole of humanity could have gone on to receive the Torah at Sinai and have been the Jewish people and the the humanity would have been just the Jewish people without any without any secondary tier. But only Abraham did it. No one else did it. That's stage two. Well, Abraham becomes the author of the Jewish people and other nations come into existence. During that time, any individual, any group could attach itself to the Jewish people and become part of the Jewish people. And everybody could have done that. Just as individuals who were not originally not Jews joined the Jewish people. So, anybody could have done that. That was stage three. Stage four, there's a famous midash which takes literally that before the revelation at Sinai. God offered the Torah to each of the nations of the world. Now this has to be understood correctly. This offering to the nations of the world wasn't in place of the Jewish people. Jewish people have to have it. That that's something which is is non-negotiable. Each one was offered to accompany and be part of the Jewish people in receiving the Torah. Had every one of the nations of the world said yes, then you would have had a revelation of the Torah to the world as a whole. And again, there wouldn't have been two levels of humanity. That's four stages in which orchestrated a single homogeneous humanity. And in all four cases, it was human free will which said no. So what I'm telling you is that God has no stake in two tiers. Not only does he have no stake in it, but he engineered that there should be a humanity on four occasions. I said four and a half. That's because post Sinai uh anyone can convert and the ideal for the world would be that everyone should convert. And again, you'd have a one one level humanity. So it isn't built into Jewish philosophy that there should be an upper group and a lower group. Nothing in Jewish ideas depends upon there being an upper group and a lower group. It's an artificial and unnatural circumstance that there's an upper group and a lower group questions up to here. Yeah. Um I don't know maybe there's a focus on this but wasn't it considered to be a negative thing that the Jewish people took on the Arab? So it sounds like the Arab should have had an opportunity to say hey like yeah we want to join with you guys. Why the problem? Well, first of all, Moses said yes. So, there has to be a good argument to to say yes. And in the cabalistic literature, it was premature. It's only premature. They weren't ready for that step up because of who they were, but um it it isn't in contradiction to the overall project. It didn't happen at one of the select stages where God was offering. I mean, because were they weren't they? Were they there by cars? Like I mean like wasn't that shouldn't that have been a time period where God's actually offered? So this very Ramban Raman says the Jewish people encamped opposite the mountain. So he asks where was the Arab the mixed multitude and he said the geographical organization was Sinai is here Jewish people is here and Arab is there and they didn't get the revelation. They didn't get the relationship. And indeed, when you see from the story of the golden calf, you see that they consider themselves not to be part of the Jewish people because when they they were the ones who instigated the golden calf and they say to the Jewish people, this okay, the translation is difficult, but anyway, the rough the idea is this is your God, O Israel. This is your God, O Israel. They're talking to Israel and saying it's your God, not our God. So they see themselves as as external. And the reason is because they didn't participate in revelation at all. Revelation was only to the Jewish people. Yeah. It seems like human nature is to have segregation. God created human nature. So isn't that kind of a shooting? There's a little bit of a shooting himself in the foot here. like how do how can you expect children to behave when they're children? I mean well um I hear where the question is coming from but if you take a broader context I think you'll see that the question itself is really very unnatural. What about the answer har evil inclination God created evil inclination which motivates us to do things that are wrong and then our job is to grow by opposing it. So it's certainly not correct that God would create us as robots to do what he wants automatically. The contrary, we have to face opposition and this is part of the opposition. That's part of the opposition indeed. So that's that's one thing. Uh now a second thing was a small thing. um people who are opposed to let's say the cast system in in India or nobility and I made the point of saying hereditary nobility in in in the European countries one of the big reasons that they're opposed to it is because your condition is dictated to you and it's unalterable but suppose I said there's a special club and it has different rules than the rest of humanity and membership is open to anybody who wants Would you consider that to be discriminatory and victimizing and unjust? You want to be that group, come join. No, but all of a sudden that group isn't special. If anybody can join, it's no longer people like to be in something in exclusive. I'm talking now about a philosophical objection to the morality of the system. Not trying to satisfy everybody's psychology but but but more than that given that there are two slots available to people this is the slot is a different slot um and a person if a person objects to there being a two-tier humanity what we say is the top slot is available to everybody then there won't be a a secondary tier so if there's a secondary tier it's only because you chose not to take the step up that's your philosophy not God's philosophy not the religious philosophy of Judaism, you chose not to take the step up. Indeed, although this point is a little tricky, uh you could say someone who gives you more options doesn't seem to be someone who's victimizing you. You have more options. How could you regard yourself as a victim because you have more options? You chose which option you want. So that's again the system is not victimizing you by setting up more options. There is a concept of um option paralysis where the more options you have, the fewer actual options you have. Yes, that's right. When there are 16 choices for for for shampoo, you find it difficult. But that's not the difference between one and two. That's not going to apply to the difference between one and two is one says we're the top and the other says we're the top. If you have two groups, each group will say to the other group that they're the superior group. They may say that, but that you're you're you're citing facts and ideas which I don't see as relevant to the question. The question was, can Judaism be criticized on the grounds that it recognizes a two-tiered humanity? I'm not talking about what the people will say. Indeed, many non-Jews say that they're superior to the Jewish people. That has nothing to do with Jewish philosophy, whether it's objectionable because it recognizes two tiers of humanity. So that's that's the second reason why the objection shouldn't be uh shouldn't be credited. Now given what we said, what is the correct description of the difference between the Jewish people and the and non-Jews and here the description is quite brutal. The original human beings who were created were created on the level of being Jews. That's the definition of real humanity. And as a result of the transgression and the expulsion from from um from the Ghana and the the degradation of the whole of the creation including humanity their existence their nature is not the true the true expression of humanity. Judaism in this case is a throwback. It's a throwback to that original expression. not total, not not per perfect, but it's a throwback to that original creation, which was the creation of humanity. And the rest don't aren't involved in that throwback. So, they aren't really what the original humanity was envisioned to be. They're much inferior to what their vigil manage humanity was envisioned to be. And the measure of that, one measure of that inferiority is the commandments that are available to them. the you've heard I'm sure at least a hundred times that there are 613 Jewish commandments. You may have heard that there are seven commandments for non-Jews. That's incorrect. There are seven categories of commandments. But if you'll take the commandments that apply to non-Jews as a subset of the 613 that apply to Jews, it turns out to be about 65. But it's still 10%. And 90% are not obligatory for them. they they're available to them. So, it's not as if they're excluded from them, but they're not obligatory to them. And that means it's it's second class for them. And they don't play the same role in interacting with the world that someone who has the whole obligation of 613 plays. It's a different role and it's a much less central role. Um to the extent that then Ram says this at the end of part one in the Dashem way of God that the mitzvah that a non-Jew does affect his spirituality and also and partly as an as a result affect his material circumstances but they don't affect the perfection the the completion of the creation as a whole. This It requires the entire c the entire set of 613 to affect the the the creation as a whole. For that reason, only the Jewish nation is a nation. Only the Jewish nation is a is a is a is an integrated people. And therefore in the world to come where and non-Jews have the world to come available to them. They live up to their commandments in the appropriate way. They too will be part of the world to come. But in the world to come there will be the Jewish people as a people and a nation and there will be others who are associated with the Jewish nation. There aren't any real non-Jewish nations. Yeah. Are there distinctions within those who are non-Jews based on I suppose whether or not they follow the seven no categories or not like individual distinctions there definitely are no question an a non-Jew who follows the laws that are applied to the non-Jews in the Torah has a a very distinct reality and outcome from someone who doesn't what about a group distinction like perhaps one religion that to know hide loss better than another religion. Are those people that are part of that group? Are they distinguished from those of other groups? Nice question. I have no clue. I my instinct and my background knowledge tells me no. But I couldn't testify to it. I couldn't testify to it. I There is an interesting rum. The Rambam says that a human being is not allowed to invent his own religion. So from the point point of view of the RAM I think the situation would be this there are there are 65 or so laws that they have to follow that's stable that's stage one now suppose that's not enough suppose they want more religious expression than that well all the other laws of the Torah are available to them I hinted at that would ago they're available to them on a volunteer basis and and they will get reward for it if If a nonju eats matzah in the spring or blows a chauffear in the fall and waves a little in the fall, he will get credit for that and will get a reward for that. But it's not every credit for for example regards to Shabbat. Okay, that's the only example. That's the only counter example. The mentions that explicitly they're not allowed to keep Shabbat. And the reason for that, a reason for that is the verses that are are in the Torah after the flood where says from now on all the processes of of of the of the world will not will not cease. Lo they will not cease. Now by the way the word Shabbat what does it mean? What's its semantics? refers to the seventh day of the week or the seventh year in the spatical cycle. Sit stay. Okay. One says sit, one says stay. Any other thoughts? Huh? I can't hear you in English. To oppose to oppose to protest. Oh, he didn't mean that. So, it means to cease. It means to stop doing so. Does not mean to sit. Does not mean to to dwell. It means to cease doing something. In modern Hebrew, avita is a strike, a work of strike. Of course, that presupposes they were working beforehand. Okay. But that's what it means, right? So, so um it it it means to cease doing some some previous activity. Now the idea of that is to act out in human terms what God did when on the seventh day of creation he ceased listen carefully creating new categories of existence quoting again no new categories of existence came into existence on the seventh day nor afterwards that's what he ceased doing and it says explicitly in the first set of the and proud of Sinai that we do to be an expression of what he did. That alone is is is reserved for Jews. All the other mitzvah, honoring parents, whatever, uh all those mitzvah are available to them. And at least they're available to them on a volunteer basis. Now, volunteering to do a mitzvah doesn't get you the same reward as being obligated to do the mitzvah. It doesn't have the same significance as being obligated to do the mitzvah, but you're not totally cut out of it. So if you want to have groups and groups with different spiritual identities, you could have that by their volunteering to take on various of the Torah's mitzvos which they want to use to express their their spirituality. That wouldn't be the same as inventing religions. It would be just a matter of how much of the uh of the Torah they want to commit themselves to. Would that create a different group identity? Maybe it would. Maybe you would. I don't know how far doing the mitzvah voluntarily affects the identity of the person. So I I it's a very nice thought and I I can't answer it in detail. Those are the materials that are available to them. Now having come this far, let's explain why the Shabas is forbidden to them. And indeed you could make an argument intuitively that should be available to them. Shabas expresses the creation of the universe. Sounds like the creation of the universe is equally accessible to everyone, right? Even to stones, everything is created. So if you're celebrating the creation of the universe, why wouldn't every human being be equally available? Why would that be equally available to them? Since this is relevant to them as it is to any anyone, anything anyone else and anything else. And I think that there's a there's a deep philosophical point here. Uh there are two different questions to ask. There's some ma matter to be handled in some way. Who's the relevant person or group of people to handle it? So first of all, you ask, do they have an interest? Does this matter affect them in some way? That's one qualification. But even if it affects them in some way, they might not have the status to be able to express in what they do relationship to that matter. So I'll give you an example. Let's suppose that United States and Great Britain are negotiating as they are negotiating trade agreements. Um who should represent the United States to negotiate this trade agreement? Well, on the first on the one hand, you would say someone who's affected by it. Well, every American is going to be affected by it. When you have a law that governs trade directly or indirectly, every human being, every American has an estake has stake in that. That's true. But the person who negotiates is the secretary of state because he represents the the the state of the the the population, the the country and its population. And when he signs a part signs a piece of paper, that becomes a commitment for the the the country. whereas some uh bus driver from Iowa who's affected by it can't doesn't have that status. So there are two conditions. One condition is that you'll be affected by it. The other condition is that your participation can represent the thing that's being negotiated. Now let's take the creation of the world. So if you ask about ask who's affected who has a stake in the creation of the world, everybody. Everybody and everything. But whose performance could express the creation? Only someone who has a hand in perfecting the creation. Only someone whose spiritual life is related to every aspect of the creation. That person can say I by what I do celebrate the creation. And that's only to the Jewish people because as we said before, the 630 commandments are the means by which the whole of creation becomes perfected. And if you're not party to that, you don't have a hand in that. So a non-Jew, although he benefits from it, still doesn't qualify him to be the ones who celebrate it. That's as a philosophical explanation as to why he wouldn't be relevant to do that. So that's u a second difference between status of of Jews and non-Jews. Then there's a third difference which in a certain indirect way is relevant to what you asked what you asked. Um there are mitzvos that we have which discriminate between how a Jew relates to a Jew and how a Jew relates to a non-Jew. Um, for example, um, taking interest on loans. When you lend money to another, when a Jew lends money to a Jew, it's not it's not allowed to take interest on the loan. When a Jew lends money to a non-Jew, it is allowed to take interest on a loan. This was a big deal in medieval Europe and it was uh used by anti-semmites. You see how they discriminate against non-Jews and how they treat non-Jews unfairly and unjustly by by doing that. Let's try to recover from the last drinking bout and look at this in a sober fashion. Is there anything unfair, unjust, victimizing if I rent out my house and charge money for that? If I rent out my car and charge money for that? If I rent out my books and charge money for that, something vicious is doing that. So, I'm renting out my money and charging money for that. What difference does it make if I let use my house or let use my car, let use my books, or let you use my money? Why shouldn't I be paid for the fact that you're using my things? There's certainly nothing inherently, morally, politically, sociologically vicious in charging interest on a loan. But if your brother asked you to for a loan, would you charge him interest? I don't think so. He's my brother. He needs help. When he needs he needs help, I would help him without without charging interest. says, "A key element of understanding the Jewish people as a people is that it's a family. The title of the Jewish people is Ben Israel." The word yes refers to an individual who lived 3,700 years ago. Jacob, the third patriarch. We are the descendants of Jacob. We define ourselves as a family. And many laws that differentiate the way one Jew treats another versus the way a Jew treats a non-Jew are based on the idea that how would you treat a member of your family versus how you would treat someone who's not in your family. Let's take lash. Lash is shrew derogatory information about other people. The law specifically says that it's forbidden to speak about other Jews. It is permissible according to the law to speak lash and harah about non-Jews. Now let's see boys and girls is lash and harah inherently vicious, unjust and so forth and so on. Let me tell you if I would hire a lash har editor for the New York Times 93% of it would be forbidden. Is it really vicious to publicize true information about people when it's derogatory? I never heard of any moral system would say that was that that was a problem. Slander is a problem. But telling the truth about a person. So there's nothing inherently morally vicious about doing it. We have a very high standard for how Jews should treat other Jews. Now, let me ask you, would you repeat true derogatory information about your brother? Probably not. He's my brother. He can get hurt by this. People will think badly about this. Having the relationship of a brother, responsibility for a member of your family, you wouldn't do this. So reverse as we analyze the differences you'll see that many of them can be explained by looking at the Jewish people as a family rather than just a people and a nation which it is. It's a people and a nation but in addition to that it's it's really a family. It's like a clan and you've heard how clans operate especially in this geography of the world and the things that they do and the loyalty to the clan is something which is very important to them. That's not zero. is not zero in in Jewish terms. So that's the third element of how the Jewish and of course the nation the na the whole population the whole non-Jewish population doesn't form a clan in that respect that's for sure not question whether individual nations could be thought of that way depends upon whether they see themselves as the descendants of a single person who then makes a family out of their out of their population that could happen I not wouldn't say that it couldn't happen but in our case It definitely happens and they are outside of our outside of our clan. I saw just a footnote saw a paper in I think it was in the journal of philosophy 25 years ago maybe where it asked the following question. Um are there moral obligations that you have let's say to your family that you don't have to other people? And if your answer is obviously yes, check the main philosophical theories of morality and ask whether they recognize that obligation. Not easy to find it. Not easy to find it. Certainly utilitarianism, which is one of the main schools. It's crazy, but it's one of the main schools, right? Is by definition based on making no distinctions between people. All people's happiness, all people's pleasure count equal matter who they are. If you think that there are special obligations that you have to members of your family, that's one way to test a philosophical theory of ethics or morality to ask whether it recognizes that. If it doesn't, I think you have a strong objection against it. Because in the end all we really have to to support theories of ethics is our understanding of what's right and what's wrong. More than that that we have. If they don't get this right then there's something missing. A lot of things missing in utilitarianism. But this is something which people typically don't don't discuss. Okay. Now let's go to another topic. This I used to talk about a lot, but I haven't spoken about it in many years. Are Jews better than non-Jews? That's really touchy. Well, one of the problems here is that the word better could mean different things. So, you have to spell out what what different concepts of better there are and then ask the question over and over again to for each concept of better, right? Um, one is are are the capabilities of Jews superior to the capabilities of other people? Another is, is the significance of what they do superior to the significance of what non other people do? The third is do they have more merit? Do they have more moral value than other people do? And now so we have at least three questions. And of course we're asking the question from the point of view of Judaism. Does Judaism say that this is so? Because that's what people are worried about and that's what people want to criticize. If you say that this is so, there's something wrong with your system. So let's see. Do they have greater capabilities than other people? Well, according to the Jewish system, definitely yes. Because, and now we'll go back to you said that God does God might be shooting himself in the foot, right? If God says these people have these responsibilities and those people have those responsibilities and those are nine time 10 times as many as these, surely if God is good and fair, God should give to the ones who have more responsibilities the capabilities that are necessary to fulfill those responsibilities and give to the other group less responsibilities. He will give them less capabilities. They don't need the extra capabilities. So given that Jews have 613 commandments and non-Jews have about 65 surely Jews have greater capabilities they have the greater capability necessary to fulfill the 613 and the non-Jews since they only have to have six 65 to to fulfill are given the capabilities to fulfill those 65 and that's less capabilities. So yes, of course, Jews will have greater capabilities because of the way the world is set up. And of course, it's only because the nons have chosen not to adopt those responsibilities. That's that's the reason for it. But that that's that inequality definitely is there. And the def the inequality of of the significance of what they do is there for the same reason because as we said, those who have 630 commandments are participating in the completion and perfection of the universe. as a whole and those who have the 65 aren't doing that. So then for sure what the Jew had does has more significance than what a non-Jew does. That those two inequalities are there and they're built into the system. I don't see how someone could have an objection objection to that especially since as we said 20 minutes ago if you think that the position of having extra capabilities and extra responsibility is a superior position take it. You're not you're not prevented from having it. It's not a cast system. It's not a nobility system in Europe like in Europe. It's open to you. So so grab it. The person who sits outside says, "Ah, listen, leave me my cheeseburgers. Don't take away my cheeseburgers and my scuba diving on chabas." But you have a lousy sis cause you set it up in such a way that you are different. That sounds a little bit a little bit odd for a person to say to say that. The third the third category and that is being a morally better person. That's not something that the Jewish religion preaches not directly. Certainly not directly your moral status depends upon what you do. And there have been terrible Jews, terrible Jews. Jews who were wicked and in in in really horrible ways. Even Jews according to those who go with this category have lost their right to the world to come. So it could come out that there are some Jews who have no place in the world to come at all and there are non-Jews who do have place in the world to come. That means that their ultimate condition these non-Jews are better than those Jews. So the since your moral status depends upon your own record and your own choices, there's nothing that says that that Jews have to be better than non-Jews. Um there is an idea that Jews have an inheritance from the patriarchs and that inheritance gives them a certain special spiritual condition that would be the result of the choices made by the patriarchs and so they they bequeathed to their to their to their descendants and that would set them a set Jews and non-Jews apart in a certain respect but ultimately your moral status depends upon your own choices and there non-Jews could do a better job than Jews than than at least some Jews do. So I think the idea that Judaism holds that Jews are better than non-Jews is in two respects true but not objectionable and in third respect which would be objectionable um is generally not true. Yeah. I've heard that there's a belief that every Jewish soul that was present at Sinai anyone anyone who uh converts to Judaism their soul was present for the revolution at Sinai right yeah I heard I heard this uh this idea so well I didn't get the end of the sentence every Jewish soul was present at Sinai that's the beginning of a sentence everyone everyone who convert who ends up converting to Judaism it their soul was present at the revelation of Sinai I'm not sure how true that is, but based on that idea, do non-Jews even have a fair shot of, you know, becoming Jews or getting into that group? Well, let's see. If post Sinai pe non-Jews do convert to Judaism, certainly. No, no, no, I'm not getting it at all. You're you're you're telling me that because let me see if I can state the question clearly and then then I'll tell you the answer. The the the assumption is those Jews who will eventually convert their souls will be present at they were present at Sinai. Yes. Okay. Now the next step is okay. So now consider the sum total of all non-Jewish souls. Some were there and some weren't. And then the the conclusion is supposed to be well those who were there are the ones who was present at Sinai and therefore that enabled them to make that transition whereas those who weren't uh don't aren't enabled to make that transition and the final conclusion is therefore it's not fully fair to to the sum total of of non-Jews. That's how the argument goes. question will be how was it chosen in the originally to determine the souls that would be present at Sinai the non-Jewish souls will be present at Sinai who would later convert here's two possibilities one is the the Jews non-Jewish souls who were there at Sinai are chosen by by lottery totally arbitrarily and then because they were present at Sinai they were given that capability of converting and the others weren't given that capability of converting and therefore it's definitely an unfair system. That would definitely be an unfair system. There's no question about that. Here's another way. God uses his fornowledge to know which non-Jews will freely choose to convert to Judaism. and he takes those souls of the ones who are in the future going to convert and brings them to the to to Sinai as a preparation for the free choice that they're going to make. But the free choice that they're going to make is independent of their having been at Sinai and that I think is a much better much better create any paradox that because they were there in the past they would end up making the choice in the future or that because they made the choice in the future their soul in the past was able to make it to at Sinai. Is there no paradox there or that is paradox? Why? I don't like I don't like the whole idea of applying the concept of time to go at all just because I feel like God is necessarily it's a false assumption narrative because you're basically saying if A is true then then B must have happened for A to be true. But wait a second that's not false. We do that all the time. No, what I'm saying is but then you're saying okay but then having B would make A true meaning if if you know my soul was at Sinai then I would convert which would make my soul at SI which made it easier for me to convert well listen things be true at the same time listen listen to this there's a bunch of things going on here there's a very very bunch of things going on here first of all I I think you're you're not describing the way in which God would relate to time uh in in thinking that there's a problem there. God spoke to Abraham 3,800 years ago. I think that's true and uncontroversial. Yes. So if that's putting God in time, that's true and uncontroversial. What you have is strictly speaking, God who's out of time is bringing about effects in time. the effects that he brings about are in time and dated. That doesn't mean he's dated. Just means the effects are dated. And that that's uncontroversial because God spoke to Abraham 2,800 years ago and God is not speaking to Abraham today. So I think that's that's something that's unavoidable, but I don't see the paradox in. I mean, it just seemed like this use of his fornowledge based on what he saw happen in the future because he some experienced the future that But it's not. Let's try that. One second. Before a fourdimensional view of everything is there's no linear nature to it. Sorry. Yeah. Let's I mean let's try to do each thing separately without putting all the details of the thing into every case. Right. So our picture is our picture is this. Um from this point of view you have the timeline. We of course are are part of the timeline. Right? Now God has a double relationship to the timeline. This is said in the in the Zor at least 100 times al. So God is present at every particle of spaceime. Nothing exists independent of his presence. One way to talk about his presence is his will gives it his its existence. So let's take the case of of God's foreign knowledge of a person's actions, right? Let's imagine the on the day and the time place which the person makes the action God is part of that existence. He's present at that existence. He fills all the worlds. So when the person performs the action, God is present in that performance because his will gives it ex the existence in which that performance takes place. And therefore, of course, he has knowledge of it because he's present in that that that that per that that performance. That's step one. Now, God also is distinct from and separate from and external to the sum total of space time. Only as creator, you if you're a creator, you couldn't be essentially part of it. You can't be part of what you yourself create. Okay. So now step two is from the knowledge that's available to God by being part of the being present in the spaceime in which the event takes place that now be that that knowledge is now available to God so to speak as separate from distinct from and and outside of the sum total of spacetime that's step two and then because it's available to God above and outside of spacetime it then becomes available to God at every other point of spaceime which he's present and that's how foreign knowledge takes place comes about that's how foreign knowledge comes about of free a free a free um free human actions so he's present at it that's how he that the knowledge starts second it becomes available outside and then outside it becomes available to every other part of uh that's the metaphysics of fornowledge according to one view according to one view we we talk about We talked about foreign for foreign knowledge and and free will. So that being the case, I don't see any I don't see any paradox there. Just the fact that he knows before it happens that it's going to happen. It's it's not a logical contradiction and it there's a metaphysical description of how of how it works. Um so I don't see any any problem there. Now could be going to the third step which which what you described. It could be that there is a problem there. I have to think that I think that through other words it I I can I can make it work if I take another step but I'm not sure that that our sources would take that step or maybe the wood and others wouldn't. You have to the four dimensional space time is not is not going to make a difference here. I mean u threedimensional time and space is separate separate dimension will be just as good for this. You don't need space time for that um block of some total of history as as a as a as a finished existence. And poor poor Einstein's thought you know the physicists know not to be afraid of death because death isn't real and and and moving through time isn't real. Um, I think he's roundly rejected in that respect. Look at Brian Green's description of the discussion of it. Everybody knows in his in his in his experience that he passes through through time. Um, and if physics doesn't allow it, so much the worse for physics. As as uh Thomas Ningle said in many of his books, the the Enlightenment and the the Renaissance science decided, we're going to leave human experience out. Just let's tell the story of dead things. And when you do that, you could have a picture of the universe, but the fact that you decided to leave it out doesn't mean and therefore you've done the whole job. You've done the job for the part that that that you didn't leave out. But we didn't have done the job for the dig that you did leave out. And that means that that's why consciousness is such a difficult problem because the the the methodology of the science of the enlightenment was to leave the the experiencing subject out and then give us an account of everything else. Then when you do that you find someone says what about consciousness they have nothing to say. Uh that's why it's such a terrible terrible problem. what what uh is called the hard problem of consciousness even finding what the NCC the neural coralate of consciousness is is to this day totally bankrupt about 15 years ago the two leading schools of finding the neurology of consciousness that means the neural coralate of consciousness not finding consciousness in the brain that's totally out of bankrupt today but finding what in the brain correlates to consciousness. There were two leading schools and they made a bet that the next 15 years of experiments and observations would settle with fedler. They had a they had a conference recently and they brought all the conference evidence to bear and they made the final decision that both schools are still extent and neither one has has been shown to be superior. In other words, the qu the question hasn't been settled. This is this is common knowledge. You can look it up. It's not I'm sorry. Yeah. So, so uh that's because the whole of science set up it set itself up methodologically to leave this out. So, along comes Einstein says well relativity and the block universe uh reveal the secret that experience is just an illusion. No, it doesn't. What it reveals is your science which was set up to leave consciousness out succeeded in leaving consciousness out. And therefore, it had nothing to say about consciousness. And to declare it's all an illusion is to pretend that your science is the whole story about the whole of ex of existence. That's just not true. It's just not true. In fact, what you have is something which hasn't been explained. That's what everybody else is doing. Yes. But I think what what what we need to sol to finish the description that I was making is God has to be able to see that this person with this soul without having been at Sinai would make the decision to convert and then because of that God then makes that soul available at Sinai to prepare the person for that for that decision. So that get bringing his soul to Sinai isn't a necessary condition for his making the decision. Now whether you can have knowledge about what someone would do freely without his actually doing it is a very very vexed problem in contemporary philosophy. Alan Planting among others has has written a great deal on the subject. It's what he calls middle knowledge. the knowledge of what the person would choose to do even if in fact he never gets the chance to choose it because in this case knowing that he would choose to convert then God brings his soul to to Sinai and then your point is well he isn't that person anymore the person who actually converts is the person whose soul was at Sinai so that would have chosen is something that never gets realized in reality whether there is such a thing as knowledge of what would have been chosen is a very very difficult philosophical subject. So I I think I would have to commit myself in that in order to make that the solution that I was talking about. You got a question? Um so the question is about for example someone in a tribe in Africa or something never been exposed to neither Judaism nor the north. So is our sources know something about how his isb going to be in terms of what he need to do nothing to do. So I think it's a very difficult question. Um and it's it's a relative question within the type of exposure the person has how much exposure he has what capabilities he has to appreciate the exposure. All that will play a role in this question of how the person's as you say his is evaluation is going to be. The one way to look at it which solves the problem without any question is Gilg is reincarnation. I I think it solves other problems also which are difficult which I don't know how to solve without them. The way to look at it is this when we are we typically judge a human life its significance and how it will be evaluated as as from birth to death. And what we're being told now is that's a wrong way to look at it. Birth to death, one birth to its death is one chapter in a many chapter book. And the soul's career is a is a many chapter uh existence. And we're only looking at one out of many chapters. So that would mean that there have to be other place times when the soul was in the world where it did have these opportunities. Whereas in this particular birth to death sequence, it didn't have those opportunities. That would be one way to to solve the problem. Without that, I can't solve this problem or other problems as well. Now question is what's the status of reincarnation is famous for having written against it against it as a Jewish position. Um the Rambam to me is an enigma. I'm saying this to you and I'm saying this for the recording. thought he can solve this. Rh took position on a lot of different issues and he was very critical of certain issues that he was against. Even some statements in the Talmud which weren't decided in the Talmud as binding which weren't decided in the I'm saying this because some of the so-called academic critics with the myriad of mistakes they make make this mistake also. Yeah, he's independent of the Talmud. He doesn't care about the Talmud. This is nonsense. absolute nonsense. Things that weren't decided, he he he like the 7,000 years, 6,000 years or 7,000 years, he he declares himself against it because it was never stated as binding in the Taba. Now, as far as I know, nowhere does the Rambam mention reincarnation. I think that's very curious. I think that's very suspicious given all the things that he was opposed to opposed to on philosophical grounds. if he had opposition to to reincarnation, he should have said so. So I think it's very curious and suspicious maybe he wasn't opposed to it. Interpreting silence is not easy. It's not obvious. It's something which someone should be cherry of. But when he takes a position against Shadiv and other things which people have criticized him for and not and and it was a subject because Wasady before him did take a position on it for him to say nothing about it. I'm suspicious that maybe he didn't oppose but somebody knows something more than I do about this. I would love to I would love some someone to give me more sources. Okay, I have to run. I'll see you tonight because you're going to participate in what the mentor mission is doing. Are you invited to do that? Yes. Okay. So, I'll see you tonight in musician. [Music]