(No, that's not a lame attempt at a pun.)
Hemshech “Mem Gimmel”, ma'amor “Tannu Rabannan – Neir Chanukah”. Rebbe Rashab asks the question: “How can you say, ‘I, Hashem, have not changed’, if indeed you see a tremendous amount of change from one world to another?” E.g., from Atzilus, the world of revelation, which is one with Hashem (“He and His causations are one”) — to the point that, for instance, Chochma of Atzilus is called literally the Brain of G-d — to our physical world, in which G-d is almost not revealed. That’s a big change. And since G-d creates the worlds, surely it means the change in Him, no?
Or, how can you say that G-d does not change if He is in control of every single atom’s movement in the Universe? Same logic.
There are many answers that Rebbe Rashab brings to explain this, from more philosophical to more profound. The first time I learned the ma’amor the following answer caught my attention because of its novelty to me:
In order for something to change, it needs a form. A metzius. The whole concept of change can be actualized only through that form.
G-d does not have a form. His revelation takes forms, but His Essence has no form, because it cannot be defined, constricted to a specific metzius. Therefore, His Essence is beyond the concept of change.
How about that? It’s not the deepest answer (that G-d’s mode of creation of the world is “yesh me’ayin”, ex nihilo), nor the most philosophical (that if you have simple infinity, a finite exertion of creative energy cannot cause change in it), but for me it is somehow the coolest.
Then again, some of the more skeptical folk may say this is just an excuse. Which is why you have to learn the rest of the ma’amor.
Another interesting thing about the above explanation is that the smarter a person is the less he thinks he understands it. (Actually, I think there may be some sort of inverted parabolic function.)
[Picture by Boris Dubov]
No comments:
Post a Comment