Love and Knowledge

The Rambam in Hilchot Yesodei Hatorah 2:1-2 discusses the commandments to love and to fear God. In the second Halacha, he explains that love is reached after one examines the world and recognizes the greatness of God through appreciation of His complex creations. This intense love in turn leads to an overwhelming desire to “know [God’s] Great Name.” The journey is from rational thought to emotional state to emotional desire for rational thought. The obvious question on this halacha is how does science necessarily lead to love of God, especially considering that many scientists are atheists? We can suggest that Rambam is discussing people who already believe in God (see earlier research page Ledah); science is not a proof of God but the beauty, craftsmanship and precision of science will lead a believer to greater admiration of the ‘talents’ of God. But this challenges us to determine what Rambam means by love. Further challenging is the second movement from love to a desire for further knowledge of God. What is meant by knowledge in this case—is it simply more scientific information? Love of God suggests a personal relationship with the Deity that in turn suggests knowledge of God is more than knowledge of the truths of His creations. When Rambam discusses desiring knowledge of God, is this similar to the mystical idea of getting close to God or is the desire to know God referring to some type of Divine information? The Rambam’s teaching, that there is a connection between the act of rational thought and the state of love, forces us to examine our understanding of knowledge, love and relationships in the search for this connection.     

• For further insight into the Rambam’s belief that knowledge leads to love of God study Hilchot Tshuvah 10:6.

• See Hilchot Yesodei Hatorah 1:10 where Rambam interprets Moshe’s request to be shown the glory of God as a request for knowledge. In this situation knowledge is explained as being a matter of familiarity. The knowledge described is the experiential based knowledge of being able to distinguish God from everything else in existence just as one knows the minute details of a friend’s face so that this friend stands distinct in one’s mind. This is not a particularly scientific knowledge, this is not a knowledge accumulated through inference and logical deduction, but through contact and emotional investment. How does this knowledge compare to the knowledge one gains of the world that brings them to love God? Furthermore, this type of knowledge would highlight how God is distinct from everything else, not how God has a part in everything as science supposedly shows.

• The Rambam says that Moshe was denied the full extent of knowledge which he asked for, as shown by God answering Moshe that he can see His back but not His face. The Ra’avad however objects to the Rambam’s interpretation of these verses and suggests instead that they allude to mystical secrets. The Ra’avad comments, as quoted in the Kesef Mishna, that Rambam’s answer makes no sense as Moshe was already privy to immense knowledge of God unlike any other Prophet. The Ra’avad’s objection is indicative of a deeper philosophic argument over the nature of knowledge of God. According to the Rambam, it is impossible that Moshe had already received the knowledge he asked for because that knowledge is impossible to gain. As everything we become familiar with is registered by us through out mortal and physical frames of reference, any experience with God that Moshe might have had was translated by him into human understanding and therefore was not truly and perfectly distinct from all other knowledge he possessed. Moshe did not want further information, as the Ra’avad asserted he already had, but a relationship with God that was impossible for man to have.

• Look at Shemot 33:11-23, which relates the discussion between God and Moshe quoted by the Rambam. Notice verse 11, which says that God and Moshe spoke face to face. What does this mean in light of verse 23 where God says Moshe will not see his face. Of course these are both metaphors, but what do each individually allude to and what is gained by using seemingly contradictory metaphors to describe Moshe’s relationship with God? See Avivah Gottlieb Zorenberg, The Particulars of Rapture p. 442, for a possible answer to this question.

• It is interesting that Rambam interprets Moshe’s request to be shown the glory of God as a request for knowledge of God, when Moshe asks more explicitly to know God in Shemot 33:13. See T.B. Brachos 7a, which offers an interpretation for the first question Moshe poses to God—to know His ways. The gemora interprets this question in a philosophic manner. It writes that Moshe in asking this is asking to be explained the reason why good things happen to bad people and vice-versa. This offers a possible difference between the first and second question. The first is more about information, while the second is, as explained above, more experiential. However, the Rambam says in Hilchot Yesodei Hatorah 2:10 that God and His knowledge are one. Though this is a very confusing concept to grasp, we can in some way relate to this idea by considering how we would not say we know a person simply because they have related to us some information which they possess. When it comes to God, however, it would seem that He is not the vessel for the information He possesses but is integrally connected to it. Notice then that the gemora quotes the answer to the second question when discussing God’s response to the first question. This implies that God did not differentiate between the two requests.