By Levi Yisroel Brackman – In partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Art in Hebrew and Jewish Studies at University College London<\/p>\n\n\n\n
There is a view commonly held among scholars that the Maimonidean rationalist approach to religion is incompatible with traditional practice.[1]<\/a> This dissertation will contest that view, arguing that not only is the rationalist approach compatible with traditional practice but, more importantly, its methods have actually informed traditional religious practice. The test case of this dissertation is prayer. In the first part of the dissertation I will try to show that Maimonides\u2019 view of prayer can<\/em> inform traditional religious practice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In order to do this, we must first establish whether Maimonides has a traditional view of prayer. Does he see utility in petitionary prayer? Or does he not believe in petitionary prayer at all, preferring instead a form of contemplative worship?<\/p>\n\n\n\n Scholars are divided on this question. Some scholars, such as Alvin J. Reines in an article entitled \u201cMaimonides\u2019 True Belief concerning G-d: A Systematisation\u201d,[2]<\/a> argue that Maimonides\u2019 view of petitionary prayer in The Code contradicts his contemplative view of prayer found in The Guide to the Perplexed, and conclude that Maimonides did not see any utility in petitionary prayer. Others, such as David Hartman in his book Maimonides, Torah and Philosophic Quest[3]<\/a> and Ehud Benor in Worship of the Heart,[4]<\/a> see the two views as complementary. In the present analysis I will argue that Benor\u2019s compatibilist view of Maimonides\u2019 concept of prayer is the more convincing and therefore that Maimonides\u2019 view of prayer has within it the essential traditional component of petition and can<\/em> influence traditional practice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the second part of the dissertation I hope to prove that Maimonides\u2019 view of prayer actually had a profound influence on the traditional practice of Habad Hasidic prayer. In support of this argument, I will show that David Blumenthal\u2019s portrayal of Maimonides\u2019 three stages of true spiritual life[5]<\/a> matches and augments Benor\u2019s interpretation of Maimonides. I will then adduce the striking similarities between Benor\u2019s and Blumenthal\u2019s description of Maimonides\u2019 view on worship and the Habad view of prayer and argue that not only is Maimonides\u2019 view of prayer, as found in both The Guide and The Code, compatible with traditional religious practice but that it is also influenced Habad\u2019s idea of prayer.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Several scholars contend that Maimonides\u2019 view of prayer in The Guide is blatantly incompatible with the view found in The Code, on the grounds that his negative theology, as found in The Guide, is incompatible with petitionary prayer. His negative theology contends that no real positive attribute can be predicated of G-d. In Maimonides\u2019 words:<\/p>\n\n\n\n In view of the fact that the relation between us and Him, may He be exalted, is considered nonexistent \u2013 I mean the relation between He and that which is other than He \u2013 it follows necessarily that likeness between Him and us should also be considered nonexistent.[6]<\/a>\u00a0<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n As far as Maimonides is concerned, any attribute that is predicated of G-d, for example knowledge, is a homonym, thus G-d\u2019s knowledge has absolutely no relation to human knowledge. Even the fact the G-d exists means nothing to us because the way He exists is not in any way similar to the way humans exist. In fact, Maimonides thinks that the best way to define G-d is by not defining Him.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For He may He be exalted, has no causes anterior to Him that are the cause of His existence and by which, in consequence, He is defined. For this reason it is well known among people who engage in speculation, who understand what they say, that G-d cannot be defined.[7]<\/a>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Alvin Reines thinks Maimonides\u2019 negative attribute theology implies an \u201cabsolute transcendence\u201d concept of deity, meaning that G-d is completely beyond any type of definition; thus one cannot even predicate knowledge of G-d. He argues that although there may be some hints in Maimonides\u2019 writing of a \u201cqualified transcendence\u201d concept of the deity, such that G-d can be defined at least by his attributes, for example G-d knows<\/em> all happenings,[8]<\/a> Maimonides\u2019 true belief is that G-d is absolutely transcendent. Reines therefore concludes that Maimonides truthfully did not believe in petitionary and thankful prayer:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Moreover, the fact that G-d has no relations with any being other than Himself, and can be affected by no other means, for example, that when humans pray they do not encounter G-d, or enter any other relation with Him, and their prayers produce no effect on Him.[9]<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Reines asks whether Maimonides offers a form of religious practice for those who believe in the \u201cabsolute transcendence\u201d view of the deity. He contends that any practice that would be suitable for such a person would be devoid of any experiential worship such as prayer. He therefore says that Maimonides believed that the true way of serving G-d was by intellectual meditation. To support this view he quotes Maimonides in The Guide:<\/p>\n\n\n\n At that time this would have been similar to the appearance of a prophet in these times who, calling upon the people to worship G-d, would say: \u201cG-d has given a law forbidding you to pray to Him, to fast, to call Him for help in misfortune. Your worship should consist solely in meditation without any works at all.\u201d[10]<\/a> <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n According to Reines, \u201cit requires little imagination \u2026 to recognize Maimonides as the latter-day prophet\u201d[11]<\/a> mentioned in this paragraph, awakening people to a truer mode of worship. Thus Reines comes to the clear conclusion that Maimonides did not really believe in traditional prayer.[12]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n There are others, however, who accept the quoted paragraph from The Guide (III: 32) concerning sacrifices as proof that Maimonides saw a utility in petitionary prayer. Marvin Fox, for example, in his book Interpreting Maimonides,[13]<\/a> claims that petitionary prayer gives the individual who prays an awareness of G-d\u2019s power in nature, making him or her aware that all that happens comes from G-d, and resisting the belief that things are governed by chance.[14]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Thus, prayer inculcates in the person correct beliefs and opinions. Fox maintains, however, that once prayer has done its job and the person has already achieved the correct beliefs and opinions, s\/he should dedicate him\/herself to seeking the intellectual knowledge of G-d:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Ideally then we must move from ordinary prayer and ordinary fulfilment of commandments to the only life in which man is finally redeemed, the life in which he elevates himself to G-d and is connected with Him permanently by way of the intellect.[15]<\/a> <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Thus, Fox is saying that there comes a time in the life of the philosopher when petitionary prayer is obsolete. However, he does not draw the same conclusions from this as Reines did; rather, he says that Maimonides felt that, in truth, petitionary prayer should exist alongside contemplative worship. Fox quotes The Guide to explain this paradoxical conclusion:[16]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n The end of these actions pertaining to divine service is the constant commemoration of G-d, the love of Him and the fear of Him, the obligatory observance of the commandments in general, and the bringing-about of such belief concerning Him, may He be exalted, as is necessary for everyone<\/em> [my emphasis] professing the law.[17]<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n From this Fox concludes that, according to Maimonides, there are some things that everyone <\/em>must adhere to, even the philosopher, and prayer is one of these things. This is because the human is made up of more than just the intellect and as such is inherently deficient and therefore unable to fully grasp G-d without the aid of language. The only natural way for the human, including the philosopher, to communicate to G-d is through petitionary and thankful prayer:<\/p>\n\n\n\n The ideal praise of G-d may well be, as Maimonides suggests, the wordless praise of the spheres, but how can this ideal ever be realized in actual human lives? Our apprehension is imperfect at best, and our dependence on language is deep. We cannot conceptualize without language, although we are fully aware that our conceptions are defective and our language inaccurate in respect to G-d.[18]<\/a> <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The problem with Fox\u2019s understanding of Maimonides\u2019 view of petitionary prayer is that it sits uneasily with Maimonides\u2019 overall transcendent philosophy of G-d, in which G-d cannot be petitioned. Fox says that although petitionary prayer is really antipathetic to the philosophic mind, Maimonides was nonetheless forced to allow it because humans are unable truly to communicate with G-d any other way.[19]<\/a> Thus, we end up with an absurd situation in which philosophers are forced to worship G-d using an anthropomorphic liturgy that is wholly incompatible with their transcendent notion of G-d. Indeed, Oliver Leaman in Moses Maimonides,[20]<\/a> makes exactly this point:<\/p>\n\n\n\n This is all very well but it still leaves the philosopher in something of a quandary, since he has reached a level of understanding of the deity which not only makes the language of prayer unnecessary but even inimical to the highest degree of understanding. The very language which is designed to attract the community as a whole is positively repugnant to the philosopher.[21]<\/a> <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n To deal with this problem Leaman maintains that for the philosopher petitionary prayer acts as a safety net. Prayer helps the person focus on G-d. Humans are constantly involved in everyday mundane activities and need to be trained to focus on things that are beyond the mundane. Thus, petitionary prayer causes the one who prays to see the universe from its correct standpoint. This is not only necessary for the masses but it is important for the philosopher as well:<\/p>\n\n\n\n It requires constant effort to concentrate totally upon G-d and his works when praying, and it requires a continuing effort to change our dispositions and actions in order to make them more appropriate from a religious point of view. Even those who have achieved some success in that direction cannot rest on their laurels and abandon the practice which led them to their present state of consciousness.[22]<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Leaman then goes on to explain that Maimonides sees the Laws of the Torah in this way too. All the laws are there to help the human arrive at correct opinions. For the philosopher, however, the attainment of correct opinions does not suffice: s\/he actually tries to understand why those opinions are deemed to be correct, and this understanding will ultimately lead to the highest form of moral perfection.[23]<\/a> Leaman says this is in harmony with Maimonides\u2019 view that the whole intellectual process ultimately leads to moral perfection. So although undoubtedly Maimonides sees intellectual activity to be superior to moral perfection, the two are nonetheless intimately linked:<\/p>\n\n\n\n This is an important idea which illustrates the reconciliation of the notion of intellectual with moral perfection. The perfected person concentrates upon the nature of G-d, and as a result performs morally virtuous actions. This is hardly surprising, since the only knowledge we can have of G-d\u2019s nature is through His actions, and in so far as these exhibit grace, love and providence the perfected intellect will seek to imitate these.[24]<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n To substantiate this argument Leaman quotes from the end of Maimonides\u2019 The Guide:<\/p>\n\n\n\n It is clear that the perfection of man that may truly be glorified is the one acquired by he who has achieved, in a measure corresponding to his capacity, apprehension of Him, may He be exalted, and who knows His providence extending over His creatures as manifested in the act of bringing them into being and in their governance as it is. The way of life of such an individual, after he has achieved this apprehension, will always have a view of loving-kindness, righteousness and judgment, through assimilation to His actions.[25]<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n In Maimonides\u2019 thinking, intellectual perfection and moral perfection go hand in hand. The study of the reasons for the law is as important to Maimonides\u2019 system as the study of physics and metaphysics.[26]<\/a> Leaman explains that Maimonides understood that the human being is slow to change and needs to be constantly trained into perfection. The study of the reasons for the laws compels the person to carry out the law; the law in turn trains the person into correct opinions. If for some reason one stops studying the reasons for the law one can revert to previous instincts.[27]<\/a> The law thus exists to inculcate the correct disposition to act in a virtuous manner.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This is also, according to Leaman, the rationale behind Maimonides\u2019 need for both petitionary prayer and contemplative prayer. Petitionary prayer helps the person focus on G-d. Ceasing petitionary prayer might make even the philosopher fall back into mundane concerns and diminish his ability to maintain a focus on higher concerns \u2013 namely G-d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n There seems, however, to be something fundamentally illogical in Leaman\u2019s main contention that \u201ca practice like prayer which is frequently performed may help in turning our minds into religious as opposed to ordinary concerns.\u201d[28]<\/a> As Ehud Benor points out, for the philosopher who has a most perfect transcendent concept of G-d, petitionary prayer for mundane concerns would serve to distract from much more lofty endeavours.[29]<\/a> Benor further challenges Leaman\u2019s assertion that knowledge of G-d\u2019s actions will lead to moral action and asks two pointed questions:<\/p>\n\n\n\n How can we know that people who understand the world \u2013 who know the wisdom that determines that it be as it is, that from G-d\u2019s point of view everything is very good \u2013 <\/em>will be motivated to act upon it? Do we have any reason to believe that according to Maimonides objective scientific inquiry can reveal a natural moral order?[30]<\/a> <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Benor claims that Leaman does not appreciate the seriousness of the Aristotelian dichotomy between intellectual perfection and practical excellence. Benor contends that, as long as one is contemplating abstract ideas of G-d such as the Unmoved Mover, one certainly will not be motivated towards practical moral excellence because the thought is pure consciousness with no practical implications at all.[31]<\/a> However, Benor agrees that by contemplating the moral nature of G-d one approaches a solution to the intellectual-versus-moral dichotomy. Indeed, that is something that Leaman himself contends:<\/p>\n\n\n\n This is not as strange as it may seem, since that level of perfection includes an intimate knowledge of G-d\u2019s works in the world, and these are heavily mediated by moral notions such as love, righteousness and justice. A human cannot observe the moral character of such actions and not seek to emulate them.[32]<\/a> <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Benor, however, expands on this idea: according to Maimonides, G-d is the intellect as well as the intellectually cognising subject and the intellectually cognised object,[33]<\/a> and Maimonides uses the human intellect to illustrate this.[34]<\/a> Shlomo Pines argues that Maimonides intentionally related G-d\u2019s intellect to human intellect. Benor understands this to mean that we should see G-d\u2019s knowledge \u201cas extending to the general structure of nature\u201d.[35]<\/a> We should think of G-d as constantly cognising the make-up of the universe. He is quick to add that there is of course no connection between human cognition and G-d\u2019s; we view the universe as something that both humans and G-d cognise, albeit in infinitely differing ways. Furthermore, Benor argues that since Maimonides allows G-d to be called \u201cCreator\u201d one can form a view of G-d that reflects an understanding of divine will and wisdom that exists in the world. Thus, if G-d is the Creator who is constantly cognising the universe and His cognition and Himself are one, then by understanding the structure of nature, one can have an appreciation of G-d Himself.[36]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n As proof, Benor adduces The Guide, where Maimonides says that by understanding the world one can come to love G-d:<\/p>\n\n\n\n This G-d, honoured and revered, it is our duty to love and fear; as it is said, \u201cYou shall love the L-rd your G-d\u201d (Deut. 6:5), and it further said, \u201cYou shall fear the L-rd your G-d\u201d (ibid. 6:13). And what is the way that will lead to the love of Him and the fear of Him? When a person contemplates His great and wondrous works and creatures and from them obtains a glimpse of His wisdom which is incomparable and infinite, he will straightaway love Him, praise Him, glorify Him, and long with an exceeding longing to know His great name<\/em>;even as David said, \u201cMy soul thirsts for G-d, for the living G-d (Ps. 42:3). (Mishneh Torah, \u201cThe Basic Principles of the Torah\u201d, Chapter 2) [Benor\u2019s emphasis] <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Benor draws from this that there can be human knowledge of G-d, which comes from knowing and understanding His universe and its structure of nature. Benor then goes on to discuss Maimonides\u2019 view of Moses\u2019 attainment of divine knowledge. He makes much of the fact that Maimonides asserts that Moses initially asked G-d to know His essence, and when this was denied he asked to know the attributes through which he would know G-d. This request was granted.[37]<\/a> By comprehending G-d\u2019s attributes Moses was able to reach the highest apprehension of G-d possible to humans. In Benor\u2019s words:<\/p>\n\n\n\n An idea of G-d constructed out of attributes of action, attributes that are only allegorically applicable to G-d, is indeed presented as the highest idea of G-d that we can form.[38]<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n For Maimonides, the knowledge of G-d\u2019s attributes, that is, the structure of the nature of the universe, brings one to the highest form of knowledge of G-d. From this Benor seeks to prove that petitionary prayer is not so far removed from the general thoughts of the philosopher. If the philosopher\u2019s general contemplation revolves around the natural structure of the universe, then it is compatible with a liturgy that also focuses on worldly concerns. Knowledge of the structure of the universe and, by extension, knowledge of G-d awakens the morally excellent person\u2019s innate virtuous behaviour:<\/p>\n\n\n\n The philosopher is a good person whose character has been finely tuned to respond with proper emotion and action as the situation requires. This response can be repressed by contemplative absorption that renders the practical virtues inactive, but the intellectual demands of the love of G-d reactivate it. The result is that the virtuous character of the philosopher reasserts itself as the intellect is passionately drawn towards G-d.[39]<\/a> <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Thus, contemplation on the structure of the universe reawakens the philosopher\u2019s virtuous character and petitionary prayer for practical needs plays a role in directing the reasserted virtuous character of the philosopher back towards practical commitment. The person who prays is asking to bring about a practical action: this in itself is an act that shows involvement in practical life, which in turn directs the philosopher to actual moral perfection. Thus, in Maimonides\u2019 philosophy there is no dichotomy between the contemplative life and petitionary prayer; rather, they complement each other.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Benor uses this to dismiss Alvin Reines\u2019 argument that, in Maimonides\u2019 eyes, contemplation had superseded petitionary prayer as a mode of worship for the philosopher. Benor maintains that, just as a philosopher can find use in petitionary prayer, a religious community could find use for sacrifices. Thus Maimonides did not consider petitionary prayer and sacrifices to be rendered obsolete or to have given way to contemplation; rather, they complemented each other and had differing roles in pursuing the same aim.[40]<\/a> <\/p>\n\n\n\n By giving the above elaborate explanation of Maimonides\u2019 view of prayer and especially by elucidating The Guide, III: 32, regarding sacrifices, prayer and contemplation, Benor argues convincingly that Maimonides\u2019 system includes the need for petitionary prayer. In sum, Maimonides believed that petitionary prayer as discussed in The Code complements contemplative worship as discussed in The Guide.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Benor contends, however, that for Maimonides the primary utility of standardised daily prayer is the conscious awareness of standing before G-d. Sacrifices too had this purpose. By bringing a sacrifice, one becomes cognisant of G-d\u2019s presence, i.e. that one is standing before G-d and worshipping Him. Prayer is therefore an act of worship that makes one aware of G-d presence.[41]<\/a> Benor explains the dichotomy between scriptural prayer, which was not formalised in a set form of words, and rabbinic prayer, which was. Scriptural prayer was supposed to allow for a certain amount of individual expression. Each person was obliged to express his or her praise, petition and thanks to G-d. Those who were more eloquent and more philosophically aware would pray in a manner that was contemplative. This type of prayer suited all people and complemented the sacrifices that were offered up in the temple, adding an individualistic expression to worship at the temple.[42]<\/a> When the temple ceased to exist people were no longer able to legitimately to speak to G-d in their own individual way. Instead they started to include in the prayers allusions arising from their imagination \u2013 something that Maimonides prohibits.[43]<\/a> As a result, \u201cmen of the great synagogue\u201d formalised prayer in a standard way.[44]<\/a> But Benor reminds us that simply saying the standard form of the prayers is not the complete package. Just as sacrifices come together with an individual type of prayer that is often \u2013 for the philosopher \u2013 contemplative, rabbinic standardised prayer is also meant to give the person a sense of communal worship and of being in the presence of G-d. Hand in hand with that goes the meditative and contemplative worship that complements standard petitionary prayer<\/p>\n\n\n\n Thus, in summary I have argued that Benor\u2019s compatibilist view of Maimonidean petitionary prayer and contemplative worship is convincing. According to Benor, Maimonides wanted the contemplative to study the structure of the universe and contemplate it and thereby come to a knowledge of G-d. Then on a daily basis the person has the opportunity to actually stand before G-d in petitionary prayer. Although Benor maintained that petitionary prayer enabled the philosopher to focus on the practical and therefore awaken the perfect moral action, this was apparently just a side benefit of prayer, the main purpose of which was that it gave the worshipper the sense of standing in G-d\u2019s presence. For the philosopher, petitionary prayer also included an intellectual element \u2013 contemplation. We can thus conclude that Maimonides\u2019 view of prayer is compatible with traditional religious practice and therefore can influence it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n What is not, however, clear from Benor\u2019s analysis is the exact relationship between contemplation and petitionary prayer. How can one have an awareness of standing before G-d in prayer without prior contemplation of G-d? It seems from Benor that the actual petition is itself a form of contemplation.[45]<\/a> Yet at the outset surely contemplation is needed in order to engender an awareness of standing before G-d in prayer.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the next chapter I will argue that, according to Maimonides, a real conscious awareness of standing in the presence of God is only post-contemplative. Thus, before praying the contemplative contemplates all that s\/he had comprehended regarding the natural structure of the universe and generates a conscious awareness of G-d\u2019s presence. Once this has occurred the contemplative can start petitioning G-d in prayer. I will also show how the concept of having a conscious awareness of G-d during prayer is central to the Habad idea of prayer.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The first thing that should be pointed out with regard to the connection between the Maimonidean and the Habad Hasidic approach to prayer is that, although they both have a strong contemplative ethos, nonetheless they both see great utility in petitionary prayer.<\/p>\n\n\n\n As with Benor\u2019s concept of the Maimonidean approach, supplication, i.e., the actual mouthing of petitionary prayer, is deemed vital in Habad Hasidism. R. Shneur Zalman (the first Habad Rebbe, d. 1813) in Kuntrus Acharon[46]<\/a> implores his followers to pray together in a group, saying word by word together with kavanah<\/em> (intent). R. Shneur Zalman believed that at times it was fervent petitionary prayer that brought about devakut<\/em>[47]<\/a> \u2013 <\/em>the Hasidic concept of cleaving to G-d. R. Dovber (the second Habad Rebbe, d. 1827) too demanded that his Hasidim pay attention to the Pirush ha-Milot \u2013 <\/em>the literal meaning of the text.[48]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Benor\u2019s view of Maimonides\u2019 concept of prayer makes petitionary prayer the centrepiece of a person\u2019s spiritual life. Habad see prayer in the same way, as R. Shneur Zalman states explicitly in Kuntrus Acharon:[49]<\/a> \u201cThe main mode of worship [of G-d] during these near messianic times is prayer\u201d. As we shall see in both the Maimonidean and the Habad concept, it is through prayer that the contemplative reaches a consciousness of the Creator. This awareness of G-d during prayer could be interpreted as a somewhat mystical type of experience. As we will see below, after contemplation one can reach a post-cognitive state of conscious awareness of G-d\u2019s presence.[50]<\/a> According to Benor\u2019s reading of Maimonides, after comprehending the structure of the universe and thus attaining a knowledge of G-d, through prayer the philosopher enters a post-cognitive stage \u2013 an awareness of G-d. Indeed, David Blumenthal, in his introduction to an essay entitled \u201cMaimonides\u2019 Philosophical Mysticism\u201d,[51]<\/a> maintains that Maimonides was not just a rationalistic philosopher but also a mystic.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Blumenthal believes that Maimonides taught three stages of \u201cTrue Spiritual Life\u201d. The first stage is intellectual apprehension <\/em>of G-d. The apprehension of G-d includes the study of natural sciences and the knowledge of G-d\u2019s creations. Quoting The Code,[52]<\/a> he maintains that, according to Maimonides, by studying natural sciences, \u201c\u2026the soul of such a person will thirst for G-d, and the flesh will yearn to love the omnipresent.\u201d[53]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n The second stage is intellectual contemplation<\/em> of G-d. It is interesting that although Blumenthal does not associate this stage with petitionary prayer, he nonetheless sees this stage as the time one is made aware of being in G-d\u2019s presence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In this type of spirituality, one concentrates on abstract thinking, on pondering the most abstract and simple concepts. But, and this is crucial, as one does this, one places oneself in the presence of G-d. In intellectual contemplation, one ponders the highest metaphysical concepts and<\/em> [his emphasis] one resides in the Divine presence.[54]<\/a> <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Blumenthal sees this as a mystical experience. Although Benor sees petitionary prayer itself as a form of contemplation, the telos<\/em> of contemplation, i.e. bringing the contemplative to the love of G-d, means the same to both Benor and Blumenthal. They both talk about stage one \u2013 intellectual apprehension \u2013<\/em> followed by stage two \u2013 intellectual contemplation<\/em>. Both agree that the contemplation should lead to an emotional love for G-d accompanied by a consciousness of G-d\u2019s presence \u2013 a mystical experience. It seems, however, that what Benor leaves out Blumenthal adds in and vice versa. As noted above, Benor does not explicitly state that one needs actual contemplation before prayer in order to have an awareness of G-d\u2019s presence during prayer. Blumenthal does make it explicit. By the same token, Blumenthal does not tell us that, according to Maimonides, petitionary prayer is compatible with this contemplative consciousness of G-d\u2019s presence, whereas Benor does tell us this. Be that as it may, Maimonides considered that petitionary prayer is practised in a state of heightened conscious awareness of G-d\u2019s presence and this can be interpreted to be a mystical experience. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Blumenthal further quotes Maimonides[55]<\/a> saying that contemplation can be practised only after one has achieved the first stage, intellectual apprehension<\/em>. He also sees the contemplation stage as more than an intellectual exercise; rather, a supreme mystical experience:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Intellectual effort alone is not enough; one must also make a spiritual, experiential effort if one wishes to attain to the telos<\/em> of humanity.[56]<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The third stage is the continuous contemplation<\/em> of G-d, i.e. being constantly cognisant of G-d\u2019s presence and having a continuous mystical experience. This is not discussed by Benor, and I therefore suggest that this is another instance in which Benor and Blumenthal complement each other. Quoting The Guide,[57]<\/a> Blumenthal offers Maimonides\u2019 view that continuous contemplation<\/em> is \u201cthe end, the telos<\/em>, of the person seeking perfection\u201d.[58]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n In summary, according to Blumenthal, there are three stages to human perfection:<\/p>\n\n\n\n I will now demonstrate how the Habad view of prayer closely resembles the Maimonidean concept outlined above.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to Roman Foxbrunner,[59]<\/a> R. Shneur Zalman (the first Habad Rebbe) reasoned that after a person had studied the doctrine of unity in Sha\u2019ar ha-Yihud ve-Emunah, <\/em>s\/he can, through the use of the contemplative methods found in Sefer shel Benonim,<\/em> arouse the emotions to love and fear G-d. Foxbrunner then goes on to say that R. Shneur Zalman\u2019s basic framework is clearly Maimonidean. Naftali Loewenthal, in his paper on Habad and Maimonides,[60]<\/a> cites Foxbrunner and claims that although Foxbrunner lists a number of sources, he does not clarify what he means when attributing a Maimonidean framework to the Habad system.[61]<\/a> Loewenthal[62]<\/a> asserts that the Maimonidean framework found in R. Shneur Zalman can be understood in light of Blumenthal\u2019s three stages, mentioned earlier. Chabad believes in a system of contemplation that involves three stages, starting with Hokhmah then Binah and finally Da\u2019at, the acronym of which is Habad.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Loewenthal claims that Hokhmah is the point of cognition, which focuses on a theosophical idea, usually some kabbalistic concept, for example the idea that G-d created the world, and that its existence is wholly dependent on Him.[63]<\/a> He understands Binah to be the process in which one contemplates the idea understood in Hokhmah, and this contemplation, according to Loewenthal, leads to emotions of either love of G-d or fear of G-d. Da\u2019at \u201csignifies a constant sense of attachment to the Divine. Da\u2019at represents a further level at which the contemplation is concretised in the inner life of the person.\u201d[64]<\/a> Thus, Loewenthal[65]<\/a> claims that these three stages correspond exactly with Blumenthal\u2019s three Maimonidean stages. Hokhmah corresponds to intellectual apprehension<\/em>, Binah to intellectual contemplation <\/em>and Da\u2019at to continuous intellectual contemplation.<\/em> This, says Loewenthal, is the Maimonidean framework that Foxbrunner claims was behind R. Shneur Zalman\u2019s system.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Although Loewenthal sheds light on the Maimonidean antecedents in R. Shneur Zalman\u2019s system, his argument does not suffice. I would suggest that as well as possibly representing Loewenthal\u2019s three levels of contemplation, Blumenthal\u2019s three Maimonidean levels represent three levels of divine worship inherent in Habad. There are also other similarities that go beyond Blumenthal\u2019s three levels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The system that Habad uses to reach the telos<\/em> of human perfection is strikingly similar to Maimonides\u2019 system. As in Maimonides, in the Habad system the first stage is attaining an understanding of G-d. As Foxbrunner points out:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Love, fear, and the apprehension of G-d\u2019s unity from which, ideally, they were to flow, are the foundations of R. Shneur Zalman\u2019s conception of Service.[66]<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n In his paper on Maimonides and Habad, Loewenthal claims that the fundamental difference between the Maimonidean model and the Habad model is that Maimonides\u2019 path to the knowledge of G-d is through the study of the natural sciences whereas the Habad approach to divine knowledge is through Kabbalistic truths. Thus, although R. Shneur Zalman quotes Maimonides\u2019 presentation of divine cognition and knowledge saying that, \u201cHe is the one who knows, He is that which is known and He is knowledge itself\u201d,[67]<\/a> R. Shneur Zalman qualifies this by saying that the Kabbalists agreed with this idea of divine cognition.[68]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n I contend that this is not because R. Shneur Zalman shunned anything philosophical, but rather because R. Shneur Zalman had a general policy of not using works that are based solely<\/em> on human intellect, as he wrote in his introduction to the Tanya:<\/p>\n\n\n\n The books of piety which stem from human intelligence certainly do not have the same appeal for all people, for not all intellects and minds are alike, and the intellect of one man is not affected and excited by what affects and excites the intellect of another.[69]<\/a> <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n R. Shneur Zalman in his Laws of the Study of Torah[70]<\/a> makes a similar point. He recommends that one should study only books of piety (Musser) that are based on Midrash, Hagadah and sayings from the Zohar but not books that are based on human intellect. He therefore built his entire psycho-philosophy in the Sefer shel Benonim around intellectual speculation supported by Talmudic, Midrashic and Kabbalistic sayings rather than pure philosophic speculation alone.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Nevertheless, there is a similarity between the Habad approach to understanding G-d and the Maimonidean approach \u2013 Habad Hasidism also has a speculative nuance. The Zemah Zedek (the third Habad Rebbe, d. 1866), in his book Derekh Mitzvotekah.,[71]<\/a>quotes Maimonides as saying that one must know<\/em> G-d,[72]<\/a> meaning that one must have an intellectual apprehension of G-d. Habad Hasidic literature often quotes the verse from Job 19:26, \u201cFrom my flesh I see G-d\u201d, and explains that through understanding one\u2019s flesh, i.e. the physical world, one can come to an understanding of G-d. Benor portrays Maimonides\u2019 concept of understanding G-d in a similar way. In other words, Habad and Maimonides both postulate the same vehicle to understanding G-d \u2013 through understanding nature \u2013 it is the framework that is used that is different. Maimonides uses pure human speculation as a guide for the understanding of nature, whereas Habad uses philosophical speculation that can be backed up by Kabbalistic and rabbinic traditions, both of which are deemed by tradition to be divinely inspired and therefore do not constitute pure intellectual speculation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For this reason R. Shneur Zalman wrote Sha\u2019ar ha-Yihud, which explains his theology. This work was meant to give the contemplative a Kabbalah-based philosophy through which s\/he would be able to apprehend G-d. Only after attaining that apprehension did the contemplative start to contemplate \u2013 during and before prayer \u2013 on what had been understood. R. Shalom Dovber (the fifth Habad Rebbe, d. 1920) in his Tract on Prayer,states this explicitly:<\/p>\n\n\n\n For all prior study and knowledge [of Hasidic concepts] serve as a prelude to [achieving] the main [intention], which is the contemplation of these concepts during prayer in great detail.[73]<\/a> <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Contemplation is possible only when one has attained a sufficient knowledge of Hasidic thought. In later generations this was strictly enforced, as is demonstrated in a letter written by Rabbi Joseph Isaac Schneersohn (the sixth Habad Rebbe, d. 1950) relating how Rabbi Shalom Dovber reproached the spiritual guides of the Habad Yeshiva for allowing young students to immerse themselves in contemplation. He felt that their study of Hasidic theosophy was insufficient and forbade them to contemplate.[74]<\/a> A similar sentiment is found in Rabbi Shalom Dovber\u2019s Tract on Prayer:<\/p>\n\n\n\n But the youth who haven\u2019t been exposed to much Chassidus and who are unfamiliar with the full breadth of its concepts, their reflection is only superficial, and absolutely cannot be considered genuine service. [In fact, their manner of reflection] is very far from being true avodah.[75]<\/strong><\/a><\/em> <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n This is strikingly similar to Maimonides\u2019 view, found in The Guide, III: 51:<\/p>\n\n\n\n As for someone who thinks and frequently mentions G-d, without knowledge, following a mere imagining or following a belief adopted because of his reliance on the authority of somebody else, he is to my mind outside the habitation and far away from it and does not in true reality mention or think about G-d \u2026 This kind of worship ought only to be engaged in after intellectual conception has been achieved.[76]<\/a> <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Thus, according to both Maimonides\u2019 system and the Habad system, contemplation should be engaged in only after proper apprehension of the subject matter of contemplation. In Blumenthal\u2019s terms, one had to complete the first stage of intellectual apprehension <\/em>before one could move on to the second stage of intellectual contemplation<\/em>. Foxbrunner points out that in the Habad system the most appropriate time for one to engage in this sort of contemplation is during daily petitionary prayer.[77]<\/a> This is also amply demonstrated by R. Shalom Dovber\u2019s tract on prayer, which is almost completely devoted to dealing with methods of contemplating Hasidic ideas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Thus, as in the Maimonidean system, in Habad Hasidism a vital component of petitionary prayer is contemplation. In fact, Habad Hasidism actually draws on Maimonides in The Codeto prove that contemplation goes hand in hand with petitionary prayer. The following is a quote from R. Menachem Mendel Shneersohn (the seventh Habad Rebbe, d. 1994): <\/p>\n\n\n\n And since the prayer is categorized as intent of the heart one needs preparation for it. \u201cTo empty one\u2019s heart from all thoughts and see oneself as if one is standing before the divine presence\u201d (Maimonides, The Code, Hilkhot Teffilah 4:16). And then during prayer one has to be in a mode of making [heartfelt] requests and supplications.[78]<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Actual supplication, the mouthing of petitionary prayer, is deemed vital in Habad Hasidism, but it has to come together with awareness, brought about by contemplation, of standing before G-d. R. Shneur Zalman also expresses this in his Sefer shel Benonim:<\/p>\n\n\n\n And therefore one should serve Him with awe and fear as if he is standing before the King and one should contemplate at length on this thought to the extent of one\u2019s mind\u2019s capacity and in accordance with the time [available] to him \u2026 before donning tallit <\/em>and tefilin<\/em> [i.e. before prayer].[79]<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n This Maimonidean idea of having a heightened awareness of G-d during prayer is central to Habad\u2019s concept of prayer. As Rachel Elior explains in her book The Paradoxical Ascent to G-d, the Kabbalistic Theosophy of Habad Hasidism,[80]<\/a> in Habad Hasidism worship is all about the paradoxical dialect of Yesh<\/em> and Ayin<\/em>, i.e. being and nothingness. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Divine worship, according to Habad, is based on a dialectical theology that attributes two tendencies to divinity or two contradictory wills that are focused in the process of creation; the purpose of divine worship is to respond to the twofold dimension of the divinity: to annul<\/em> the separate substance, to strip it of its materiality, and to elevate it in spiritual degrees until it is restored to the prior divine unity, on the one hand; and to draw down<\/em> the divinity into the separate Yesh<\/em>, to manifest it within the opposite of its essence, and to assist in the process of infusion of the Ayin <\/em>into the Yesh<\/em>, on the other hand.[81]<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Thus, although on the one hand worship is supposed to bring G-dliness into the world, the worshipper must simultaneously try to see the world from a G-dly perspective, where the Yesh<\/em> (something) is really negated by the Ayin<\/em> (nothing). This is the process of self-abnegation that one is supposed to go through during prayer. Foxbrunner also explains the Habad concept of prayer in this manner.[82]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n The concept of self-abnegation implies being subsumed in another being, in this case in G-d. Thus, the idea of conceptually turning the Yesh <\/em>into Ayin<\/em> during prayer really means having an acute awareness of G-d\u2019s presence: when one is conscious of the Divine one can no longer feel oneself as a separate entity and conceptual self-annihilation occurs. The converse to this is that the abnegation of self leaves room for the Divine presence to manifest itself. This is the paradox Elior was talking about, in which, on the one hand, one has got rid of the Yesh<\/em> through self-abnegation and, on the other, one has drawn down the Ayin<\/em>, i.e. the Divine, into the Yesh<\/em>, i.e. the universe. To achieve this one has to first undergo self-abnegation, meaning experiencing a heightened awareness of G-d. As with Benor\u2019s concept of Maimonidean prayer, this is a fundamental aspect of prayer in the Habad system.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Thus, one must first apprehend G-d and then, before and during petitionary prayer, one should contemplate further on the concepts regarding G-d that one had previously apprehended. This contemplation in the Maimonidean system, according to Blumenthal, is supposed to bring the person to a mystical experience that is beyond any type of normal intellectual experience. Habad too sees the purpose of contemplation in this manner, as R. Shalom Dovber writes in his Tract on Prayer, as enabling one to achieve a type of cerebral ecstasy, in which a G-dly light shines in the contemplative\u2019s mind, having an immediate and real effect on the heart and arousing emotions of love and fear:<\/p>\n\n\n\n When a person binds his mind with the divine core of the concept, then the G-dly light itself radiates in his mind. Although the light is still invested in intellective garments, these garments only act as a channel. The principle [aspect of the reflection], the G-dly light, is sensed by him. Therefore, the light is drawn and extends automatically into the heart as well. In other words, the essence of the G-dliness apprehended by his mind is also felt in his heart.[83]<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n This feeling of a G-dly light in one\u2019s mind and the emotional love that is induced by contemplation seem to relate well with the mystical experience that Blumenthal is talking about in the second stage of his Maimonidean system.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Continuous contemplation \u2013 in which the contemplative constantly senses this mystical feeling even when he is carrying out mundane chores \u2013 is the third and ultimate Maimonidean stage that Blumenthal discusses. This stage too is found within the Habad system.[84]<\/a> Although to maintain such a level of intensity would not come naturally to most people, we shall see that, it is nonetheless something to be aimed for. <\/p>\n\n\n\n In Habad Hasidism, most people can reach only the level of the Benoni<\/em> (lit. intermediary person). A Benoni<\/em> usually has a mystical experience during and immediately after prayer only. As R. Shneur Zalman says in Sefer shel Benonim:<\/p>\n\n\n\n A Benoni<\/em> is likened to a person that is asleep but can awaken from his sleep. Similarly the evil which is in the Benoni<\/em> is as if asleep in the left side [of his heart] during the time of the recital of the Shema<\/em> and prayer when his heart is burning with love of G-d, but after this [the evil] can reawaken itself.[85]<\/a> <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n R. Shneur Zalman then goes on to say that because there are times when the Benoni <\/em>feels no love for G-d in his heart, his service cannot be considered true service. Only a Zaddik<\/em> who has already conquered his evil inclination and therefore has nothing to replace and dispel the love s\/he has for G-d can experience a continuous love for G-d.[86]<\/a> <\/p>\n\n\n\n Loewenthal, writing of the difference between the Zaddik <\/em>and the Benoni<\/em> in R. Shneur Zalman\u2019s system, makes exactly this distinction:<\/p>\n\n\n\n The difference between the Zaddik<\/em> and the Benoni<\/em> in this ecstasy is that for the latter this state is not permanent; the \u201cevil\u201d (i.e. the ordinary animal self of the non-Zaddik<\/em>) reawakens once he leaves the heightened atmosphere of ecstatic prayer \u2026 The Benoni <\/em>undergoes the experience of abnegation during prayer. Afterwards his \u201cnormal\u201d self returns, manifested by the activity of his normal will. He is not a Zaddik<\/em>, for a Zaddik <\/em>reaches a permanent abnegation \u2026[87]<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\nPart One<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
Part Two<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n