Translated from Hebrew by S. NAthan

l'ilui nishmat Esther bat mordechai

   One cannot hope to understand reality. Better to try to uncover what lies behind it, below it. Ten plagues, followed by the Slaying of the First-born, followed by the Exodus from Egypt – followed by the Giving of the Torah.

   The Ibn Ezra and the Ramban dispute which factor caused the other: Was their fulfillment of the commandment of the Pesah sacrifice and the order of its observance the cause for b’nei Yisrael being saved from Egypt and going forth to freedom? (Ibn Ezra) Or was their deliverance from Egypt the cause for the order of the Passover observance? (Ramban)

   In a similar vein: Are the Torah and the commandments the factors that cause belief in God, or is belief in God the factor that causes study of Torah and observance of mitsvot? (See the Ramban at the end of Parashat Bo.)

   The question lying behind all of these questions is the issue of reward and punishment, for this is what connects one to fulfilling the commandments. “‘For this [mitsva’s] sake, God did for me.’ Rabbi Avraham (Ibn Ezra) has said that ‘for this sake’ means for the sake of my doing and worshipping Him by eating the Pesach sacrifice and the matza, God performed signs and wonders for me until He brought me forth from Egypt,’ and this is not correct. I will yet interpret this text further on, in verse 16.” (Ramban) “…And now I will tell you a rule that applies to many mitzvot: From the time idolatry began, in the days of Enosh, people’s views about faith became confused. Some heretically deny the essential, and say the universe preceded everything, denying God and saying that He is not, and some deny God’s omniscience, His personalized knowledge of each individual, and say how can God know, though He knows what transpires on high, and others admit to God’s knowing, but deny His Providence, and would make people out to be like the fish of the sea, as though God does not watch over them, and which have no reward and punishment, and these people say: ‘God has abandoned the land.’” (Ramban, end of parasha.)

   It seems that these two views reflect two sides of the same coin. According to the Ibn Ezra, God’s hesed in itaruta dili’aila, “the higher One awakening” to seek the lower one, results from a response to itaruta dilitata, “the lower one awakening” to seek the higher One, human beings taking the initiative by fulfilling the Torah and mitzvot.

   The Ramban’s view requires some explanation. The Ramban is itemizing problems of faith: The first problem is those who do not believe that the Godly entity exists at all. The universe came first. It was created by itself. A scientific grasp of things. The second difficulty: Those who have difficulty believing in the Creator’s connection to the universe, as though “God had abandoned the land.” They admit the existence of God but see two separate domains. The higher domain does not get involved in what goes on in the existential domain. And the third view: “They admit to God’s knowing but deny His Providence.” They deny reward and punishment, and say “God has abandoned the land.” In the Ramban’s phrasing, the difference between the second view and the third view is not clear. What is the difference between knowledge of the acts of human beings, and providence and reward and punishment?

   What importance or realness is there to the third view, which admits God’s knowledge, which necessarily means a connection between the higher and lower domains, yet denies that any relationship of reciprocity obtains between the two domains? Such people seem to have difficulty defining the mutually opposed relationship inherent between hashgaha pratit, personalized Divine Providence and free choice, so they claim that if free choice exists, personalized Divine Providence is not possible. It seems difficult to find any serious principle in this perception, because how could anyone accept the principle of mutual relations between domains without believing that there is a response to human behavior from on high, in the form of reward and punishment?

   It would seem to be referring to the difference between Jew and non-Jew. The Jew exists in a new reality that is higher than the reality that is subject to the laws of nature. The Torah-and-mitsvot-observer’s reality belongs to the Jew alone. (– A non-Jew who has observed Shabat incurs the death penalty; one may not teach Torah to a non-Jew.) Within this reality of the Jew’s, which is olam hayetsira, the world of creativity – here alone a relationship of reciprocity exists, a relationship of covenant, between the one who serves God and the Sovereign of the universe. Here alone, free choice and Divine Providence meet. The Torah-and-mitzvot reality is a creative reality which God’s servant initiates, and what determines this reality’s laws is the personal quality of the individual serving God. Reward and punishment in relation to the non-Jew is different from reward and punishment in relation to someone who serves God. With the non-Jew, objective laws apply (there is no category of shogeg, unintentional sin) whereas with the Jew, reward and punishment are relative. During the Exodus from Egypt, the “destroyer” did not smite those who dwelt behind mezuzot and thresholds that had been smeared with the blood of the Pesah sacrifice.

   The Ramban opposes the perception represented by the Ibn Ezra, according to which the Jew, by fulfilling Torah and mitzvot, creates a response of miracles and wonders on the part of the Creator of the universe. He emphasizes the other side of the coin, which deems the obligation of gratitude to be at least as important as God’s servant initiating itaruta dilitata.

   It appears that worship of God as gratitude is more important to the Ramban since it obligates not only the mind but also one’s personal attitude. It obligates one to personal involvement, to perfect identification with the Creator of the universe. Gratitude surpasses rational awareness which activates objective opinion and an awareness of truth that lacks the personal involvement of gratitude. Awareness of truth on the one hand, together with personal involvement and identification on the other hand – this is a new reality, a Jewish reality reserved exclusively for those who serve God. The Ramban views the mitzvah of Pesah and matza as an expression of gratitude that is one of complete involvement rather than mere rational awareness.

    “And you shall know this day, and place it on your heart.” Recognition of the service of God and the study of Torah is sufficient, according to the Ibn Ezra, and indeed this is compatible with the Lithuanian perception which views the study and upholding of Torah as the essential. According to the Ramban’s perception, this is not sufficient, because it lacks feeling, which expresses a response at the level of “being” and not merely at the level of “doing.” Gratitude is an emotion that expresses the perfect personal response, the longing and dvaikut of a self uniting with its Possessor. While the Ramban obviously views devotion to Torah and mitzvot as being of supreme importance, he maintains that an individual’s worship will never be complete until he gives his entire being to his Possessor – to the point of expressing the emotion of gratitude. Those who identify with the Ibn Ezra’s approach would claim that the mitzva of dvaikut (“clinging” to God) is expressed by attaching oneself to Torah scholars, because the Creator is not a body that one can cling to, and therefore it is sufficient to attach oneself to Torah scholars, and to attach to Torah and mitzvot. The innovative aspect of the second approach, which we are attributing to the Ramban, is that on the emotional plane it is feasible to attach to God, through the emotion of gratitude. One who attaches to his God attains a private, personal attachment, which completes and closes a circle that encompasses God’s servant and his God in one unit of perfect reality.

   Lulei dimistafina, “except that I dare not say this,” I would view this dispute between the Ramban and the Ibn Ezra as the paradigm for the main question that arises with olam hayetsira: Is this world of creativity, which is the work of human hands as an encounter with the Creator of the universe, a closed cycle, or does it serve also as a springboard to higher worlds? According to the Ibn Ezra, the olam hayetsira is quite enough for the servant of God to satisfy his Godly abilities. According to the Ramban, this world of creativity is indeed the ideal place for a human being to find himself, to discover his qualitative self and to express his infinite abilities within a virtuous cycle whose base is positioned on creative ground, while its peak reaches heaven.

   Bava Batra 116: “Rabbi Pinhas, son of Hama taught: ‘Whoever has a sick person inside his house, let him go to a wise person, and ask for mercy over him…as it says, ‘The fury of the king is angels of death, but a wise person will atone that.” He must be wise and righteous, since “a wise person preferable to a prophet.”

   Brachot: “One view is that he should go to a wise person and learn from him how to pray.” The wise person is meant in the sense of the Ibn Ezra’s approach. The wise person begets the world of creativity, and rules it by the power of his Torah. The wise person is the one who determines God’s rules within the reality of the world of creativity, which is created by God’s servant though the Torah he learns and the mitzvot he fulfills. This is why he is called “prince of Torah.” He rules in the world of Torah, and wields influence over the law of Torah that applies to reality. “A sick person” is meant in the sense of “one whose head aches – let him occupy himself with Torah,” and “if a man sees that sufferings are coming upon him, let him search his deeds.” The wise person can understand the situation, can analyze the reality and arrive at the root causes and relevant factors. His is an objective understanding, and he is capable of teaching and conveying this understanding to a person whose situation is sick (“the sick person inside one’s house”). This is because “a prisoner cannot free himself from jail” which is his self-preservation. He can only be freed through the study of Torah (the wise person, the self).

   In contrast, “the righteous person is the foundation of the universe.” He does not rule only olam hayetsira, the world of creativity. He is the foundation and cause of the creation of the universe, because he actualizes the Godly Prence, and therefore he is the cause for the creation as well as its purpose. Therefore he is able to influence the will of the Creator, as in “the righteous one decrees, and the Holy One fulfills.” This follows the Ramban’s approach, that he is not only the foundation of the universe but also the purpose of the universe – which is attachment to God through gratitude.

   In the final analysis, both the Ibn Ezra’s approach and the Ramban’s approach are complementary, and together they close a circle, or spiral. One represents the cause and the other represents yhe ultimate purpose.