Rabbi Friedman, You're Making A Very Big Statement Here!!!
Вставка
- Опубліковано 12 вер 2024
- Email Me: RabbiYoniKatz@gmail.com
In conversation with Rabbi Nachman Seltzer
Copy and paste the link below for all the episodes of the series.
11213.org/?s=n...
Want to learn more without the Hebrew and Yiddish words? Check our Rabbi Manis Friedman Channel / manisfriedman for English only!
Click Here To Get Access To Weekly Conversations!
Visit 11213.org/ for Audio/Video of Rabbi Manis Friedman
Like: / 11213.org
Follow: / 11213org
Subscribe: / 11213org
This has been an epiphany for me! Thank you! I have a need to be needed and if God needs me I feel closer to him because I want to do things for him. I always thought he didn't;t need me and so it would not matter whether I served him or not. If he made us in his likeness and we need each other this also must be an attribute of God too, to need.
"We're actually doing something for him... It's not make-believe." Brilliant!
7:24 why would he need pleasure? How does he get pleasure from our serving him? Think like a parent… we get pleasure by watching our children being happy and playing, enjoying life. Watching our children enjoy gifts we have them, gives us pleasure.
He gave us the world, making the world for us, he enjoys, he receives pleasure and joy when we enjoy the gifts he gave us.
Consider that from an old Testament and New Testament perspective, consider marriage, mutual submission, husband, wife, relationships
Thank you HASHAM for reminding me , I don’t need nothing !!! Just to serve Source energy
HaShem
Thank you, these conversations are great!
Or maybe he was needy once until he realized that he had to be humble to bring people together and love and unity, even in marriage ❤
He needs your gift!❤ he needs you. He gave you free well so you could choose love.
God dose not need ! its all Love God Loves us so we Love him
The guy on the left is very cocky and disrespectful to this fellow on the right who maintains his composier
This is called a fractal presentation of the garden of Eden.
It’s the first marital argument
Reb Manis , we're going into philosophy overdrive here.
Muslims say God has no need of creation . We need God , we need to worship him for our own gain.
He has no need for creation, He just needs us. We are His, from His Essence. Essence literally means "Essential" i.e. NEED. The argument that God doesn't need us, but if we want to gain we should listen to Him is so off putting and if you think about it deeply, is horrible. "I am God, I created you and I command you to love and adore me. If you don't, go to hell forever, I don't care".
Entertaining 😊 Thank you for this conversation
God is that than which nothing greater can be thought; he is pure actuality, lacking no perfection; and yet he needs us? No, obviously not. God created us not out of need, out of a lack or deprivation, but as pure gift.
I have to say this. All my days I learned by the greatest Gedolei Yisrael. Rav Gedalia Schorr was my great uncle and even as a child I was very close with him. Rav Leib Bakst, my Rosh Yeshiva, learned with Rav Chatzkel Levinstein. I can just tell you, that the principals that Rabbi Manis Friedman talks about, God needing us, was very simple to every three year old Cheder boy. If God doesn't need us why are we doing this? Because it's good for us? So we're selfish, not exactly לשם שמים! You can't believe in שכר ועונש, if he doesn't need us. If he's only doing it for us and he doesn't care, why is he punishing us. And שכר ועונש is only cause and effect, not an actual punishment.
This is one of the 9 Principles of Faith of the Torah’s inner dimension: עבודה צורך גבוה, which means, our serving God is His need.
But it is only one of 9 and the picture needs to be complete by knowing the other 8.
He is the initiator
Does Rabbi Tovia Singer agree with Rabbi Manis Friedman's interpretation of Tanakh?
No, he does not. Rabbi Friedman is not speaking for himself either, but speaking for Chassidus and Kabbalah, which Tovia doesn't teach.
Just because he doesn't focus on it doesn't mean he doesn't believe in it
@@joshmich873 True. I'm sure he knows much and agrees with what he knows, but I have seen him make the statement that God doesn't need us. That's actually a true statement btw, so I'm not disagreeing with that, but R Tovia doesn't seem to know about or agree with this statement that Hashem needs us in this perfect, someone to someone way, and seen him make statements that seem to contradict it. Could be wrong I guess?
So crazy Mannis HIS rachem is not to be confused with needing us. Stop the madness, you are supposed to be a wiser man, you are killing it
Rabbi Mannis is a Genius, and you my friend Omar are a bit loco
@@abrasha1977 Mantis has been sniffing something very weird. These ideas of his are total k'fira. Hope he does tshuva before it's too late.
@@mandyadler4536 no it is heresy to say that God does not need us. These are basic things that we all learned in school, in Yeshiva, while Yaron Reuben was busy fressing Pig.
To assert that because the Almighty "initiates everything" - ie. creation, first and foremost - that it implies that He does so because of a need within Himself, is not a logical conclusion, Rabbi Friedman.
This argument can be analyzed within cognitive space with full symmetry.
Let me know how I can collaborate with somebody on this
They keep telling us that G-d is the husband and we are the wife...and yet, somehow, he doesn't need us.
G-d is the one who initiates.
He was looking for a way to take his bride into the next dimension, and it required a lot of research.
"See it for yourself, I found that God made man honest (straightforward) and why did they seek for many calculations" Book of Ecclesiastes • Chapter 7 • Verse 29
The image that came to my mind during the interview was the case of Moses and Korah. The first is an honest man who sees the future as present and the second is stuck in the past. Refuses to release the reins of his achievements during slavery and does his best to restore the situation to the way it was before. In other words: "How dare you?!".
We do have an answer. He initiates, across time and space, he always initiates.
Read the song of Solomon my love.
It’s the small flavors that matter, it doesn’t have to be a big flavor at all favor
Here is a full quote of the passage from the Maaneh loshon book. “ … For who am I that You have brought me to this position. I AM NOT NEEDED BY YOU. It is only in Your great kindness that You created me, so that I could achieve merit. You brought me into being from nothingness.” in black & white letters.
Exactly!
So old testament thinking
Such materialism, sports cars, and what not
DeVine Union within any frame transcends everything
Instead of word need replace it with "want", it fits the "Omnipotent " description to our CREATOR for HE is instructing us to serve HIM. We are created weather we like it or not in this world to SERVE HIM. And if you choose not to..your lost.
Want and need are the same by Hashem. It's blasphemous to say He wants something He doesn't need - He's not go a yeitzer hara. "Choose to or not, your loss" is HORRIBLE. I would never want to serve a God who says "love me or go to hell for ever, I don't care".
@@DrKaii
I NEED a mechanic because I don't know how to fix a car, I WANT a mechanic to fix my car because I want someone to do it for me, even though I know how to fix it by myself.
Using the word "want" makes it more "authoritative " and authoritative fits the word "Omnipotent " got it? Meanwhile "need" describes incompleteness, doesn't match with Omnipotent. We have a freedom of choice, but that doesn't mean our choices have no consequences.
@@iceking956 Exactly. Want implies something I can do myself, and therefore I am persuing an optional course of action. Therefore this is not the correct way to describe God's bond with us. It is essential, not optional. He can't not have us, AND, He can't have us unless we give ourselves to Him willingly, which He can't force. Need is perfect. Want is not enough. Want only adds that not only is it essential and something He can't force, but also He desires it. So both words are good, and one is not good without the other.
@@DrKaii
"He cannot have us?"
Were talking about the ONE and only, the CREATOR of heaven and earth and all of its host, mighty Angels worships HIM on heavens...and HE cannot have us?
Please...stop this way of thinking...
GOD wanted man to Need HIM in order to live a holy life under HIM here on earth.
When God created the water creatures, HE instructed the water to create them. Thus water creatures needs water in order to live in an aquatic world.
Same goes for Man, when we are created, GOD created us on HIS image, godly image, thus MAN needed HIM in order for man to live a holy life, as fish needs water for their aquatic life.
And the words of the profit are written on the…
The orphans , widows , single parents , and non believer children needs the charity …
People don't argue about what they know they argue about what they don't know. Which in this case is God.
I'd like to suggest what seems to be bothering those who are opposing what Rabbi Friedman is saying, at least what I understand him to be saying. There is a confusion between two implications or contexts for the word "needs." It seems that the opposition is automatically associating the word "needs" to reflect a lack in the needer. After all, one only needs what one lacks. And this is a true use of the word. For example, humans need to eat (to stay alive), or we need to sleep to be able to function. In these examples, the need reflects a lack on our part. We lack food, and if we don't get it, we will, ch"v, not do so well -- all because of a deeper lack in us, namely the inability to perpetuate our physical existence without adding fuel. Similarly, if we say that a person "needs" love, we are saying that the person is lacking a certain benefit called "being loved," and without the love, the person will fail to thrive, thus demonstrating that life without love is a life of a lack. Moreover, the failure to thrive without love -- just like the failure to live without food -- is reflective of a deeper lack, namely the inability to thrive without being loved. So, we are very conditioned from our life experience to associate needs with lacks. And, obviously, this association of needs with intrinsic lacks cannot at all, ch"v, ever apply to Hashem (and I'm fairly certain that Rabbi Friedman has always been utterly removed from any such association). In sum, logically, our default perspective based on our life experience is that a need exists only where a lack exists, and this seems like the only perspective available.
But....
There is a different source for a need other than a lack in the needer. That occurs when the "need" is generated as the result of the needer's desire for something or the needer's want for something. The desire itself is not reflective of any lack; in fact, the desire might very much bespeak a completeness and a wholeness. The desire can come from such a deep and elevated source within a person that it is actually expressive of a "no lack" or a "lack of a lack." For example, let's say a person has developed to such a level that he is holy and righteous, perfect midos, etc. A tzadik. Now this person wants to open up a huge chessed organization to help poor people. The "want" and "desire" bespeaks the person's completeness (there's no lack there). And once the person has this desire, this "want," now the person "needs" donors! He needs volunteers. He needs an office. Maybe he needs a warehouse. Of course, the person can stop wanting to open a chessed organization; maybe he'll decide to build a youtube channel instead. Logically, it emerges that when the person ends his desire to build the chessed organization, his need for donors, volunteers, office-space, etc. evaporates. And just as before he had the desire, the person had no lacks in himself, so too after he had the desire, he had no lacks, and after he abandoned the desire, he had no lacks in himself. Nothing changes or changed within him through this process. But so long as he has the desire for some result, for some purpose, he has needs relative to the achievement of that result, the fulfillment of that purpose -- the gratification of his desire. Another example (and a very mundane one): Let's say a person wants to go watch the Olympics in person. He doesn't lack anything in himself because he wants to go to the Olympics. He just wants to go -- it's something that interests him and he enjoys spectator sports. Okay, so following on the heels of that want, this person now has needs. Now this person needs a ticket for admission. He needs a way to get to Paris. And if he drops his desire to go to the Olympics, his needs disappear; conversely, so long as he maintains his desire, he maintains his needs. A final holy example: a bochur wants to be in the top shiur of a huge yeshiva. This desire does not bespeak a lack in the bochur at all. In fact, having such a yearning reflects a completeness and a holiness in the bochur (call the shadchanim!). As soon as the bochur has this desire, immediately he has needs: he needs to get admitted to the yeshiva. He needs the rebbe to teach the shiur. Etc.
It seems to me that this is what Rabbi Friedman is taking about when he speaks of Hashem needing us. Via the Torah, Hashem revealed to us His desires and His wants. There are dozens if not hundreds of sources expressing Hashem's desires and yearnings and ratzonos. Hey, that's the whole concept of a tachlis (purpose). Underlying every purpose is the desire to achieve that purpose. That's what tachlis means -- the end in mind. The place or goal where one wants to get to. Hashem revealed to us His purpose for choosing to create the world. He wants something (or some things) to happen with this -- or, in this -- creation. Of course, we can't expect to understand why He wants these outcomes, why He has His purposes and reasons for making a world, but we have to believe Him when He tells us what they are. And Once He has these purposes (which are just wants and desires and yearnings in disguise), He has needs. He is not lacking in Himself, ch"v. But He is lacking the fulfillment of His desires and purposes, until they are, BE"H, fulfilled. Yes, of course, He can abandon the desires or modify them, but until He does that, He has needs relative to the fulfillment of those desires and yearnings and purposes. And since Hashem told us that the Torah is eternal, we can assume that His expressed desires, wants, and yearnings -- His purposes -- are still ongoing. Thus, so too are His needs.And, obviously, this association of needs with lacks cannot at all, ch"v, ever apply to Hashem.
עַל כֵּן אֵינְךָ צָרִיךְ לַכֹּל / לְיָדְךָ וּלְחַסְדְּךָ צְרִיכִים הַכֹּל.
הַכֹּל צְרִיכִים לְצִדְקוֹתֶיךָ / וְאֵינְךָ צָרִיךְ לִבְרִיּוֹתֶיךָ.
כִּי טֶרֶם כָּל יְצִיר הָיִיתָ / לְבַדְּךָ מְאוּמָה לֹא נִצְרַכְתָּ.
To say hashem needs us is just like saying that you need your spouse or your kids, it's total kefira that's basically saying that hashem is not perfect in it of himself, the real answer to his question is that god loves us and god is the source of good and light and he wants to share it with us, it's not a need!
Why do you keep saying you don’t know why, why do you keep saying you don’t know why? He loves you, he loves you so much, that’s the only reason he needs, and he’ll do anything for you if you only love him back.
Wow, that sounds so transactional!
Transactional relationships never work out.
This is an obstruction of the seven hermetic principles, gender
This guy keeps talking about reward:
Whatever happened to "don't do a mitzvah expecting reward" ?
The why is because God is love.
Where's the whole video?
G-d "doesn't need it"...and yet he told us "if you don't do what I say, i will kick you out of Israel"
clearly he needs something here lol
The Rabbi is clearly not a good metaphysical thinker. It is because God does not _need_ us that we know that creation is a pure gift: it is pure, unadulterated gift, it is entirely for us. That's liberating. Its absurd to think that haShem is a kind of psychological subjectivity that has needs!
I can't believe today's Yeshiva people lack basic Hashkafa that learning by the great Gedolei Yisrael was so simple. HE IS ARGUING WITH A BASIC ASSUMPTION??? Who is this everyone???!
Talk to Teal Swan
Why is it so hard to understand, with out humans in general there would be no one to recognize hashem....also at mount sinia the agreement was conditional if am israel wouldn't except the Torah there would be no world....
Nonsense.
I cant how someone would be intrigued by him.
So ridiculous. Rabbi Feldman was so right. Nothing more than apikorsis.
Please!!! Just say HaShen REALLY WANTS!
The word NEED is problematic in this context, It’s really not simple.
Please R’ Mannis. stop This NEED campaign.
Is it one of the 13 principles of faith?!
Did the Rebbe make such statements?
It’s clearly not OIFFEN HAMISKABEL.
Before or after Timtzum. What benefit is it to confuse people?
Better Talk about moshiach.
Gosh...the litvish guys are so bothered by this discussion.
They break out into hives. What's up lol
God needs us , ok? Why ? i dont know and that's not importent. ---> Very weak argument
It's not an argument. This is not an exercise in logic, it is a discussion of the sources. The answer for why He needs us is found only in Hashem's Essence, which means we can't reach it through logic and intellect (i.e. things that Hashem created, later). It can be known though, viscerally. He made us need each other and as we graple with that, we will come to know what is so good about having someone else. Having a home.
Why do we love having a home? Why do we need our wife and children? You can try and put it into words if you want, but they will never be enough and the exercise in and of itself of putting it into words cheapens it.
Anyway, didn't the other Rabbi also have his own "I don't know"? When he tried to explain how we are serving Hashem, it gives Hashem pleasure, and we don't know why. His argument is exactly the same as Rabbi Friedmans, but his is meaningless, Rabbi Friedman's makes sense all the way to the core.
Weak because it's lunacy and k'firah.
It’s very simple. Friedman is dying on the sword with the word “need,” which creates all this hoopla and attentions which I’m sure he knows about and wanted all along. All he has to do is change the word “need” to the word “want/desires” and everyone would agree and there is no more discussion. He is conflating the two terms on purpose to create this ambiguity. I challenge him to bring one legitimate source that uses the word need, saying that Gd needs us. In fact there are clear sources that say the opposite, that He does not need us and the Torah is full of sources that say He wants/ desires for us to do His will. Just like a parent wants his children to be successful. He wants it, but doesn’t necessarily need it to survive and function.
Bring me on your little debate show and I’ll straighten out your thesis. Stop confusing the world
@yosefzayrov8229. I hear what you are saying, and I agree that the matter involves the words "want" and "need." But hear me out and tell me what you think. (I posted this a few days ago, but your comment is so in the ballpark to me that I took the liberty of reposting this).
I'd like to suggest what seems to be bothering those who are opposing what Rabbi Friedman is saying, at least what I understand him to be saying. There is a confusion between two implications or contexts for the word "needs." It seems that the opposition is automatically associating the word "needs" to reflect a lack in the needer. After all, one only needs what one lacks. And this is a true use of the word. For example, humans need to eat (to stay alive), or we need to sleep to be able to function. In these examples, the need reflects a lack on our part. We lack food, and if we don't get it, we will, ch"v, not do so well -- all because of a deeper lack in us, namely the inability to perpetuate our physical existence without adding fuel. Similarly, if we say that a person "needs" love, we are saying that the person is lacking a certain benefit called "being loved," and without the love, the person will fail to thrive, thus demonstrating that life without love is a life of a lack. Moreover, the failure to thrive without love -- just like the failure to live without food -- is reflective of a deeper lack, namely the inability to thrive without being loved. So, we are very conditioned from our life experience to associate needs with lacks. And, obviously, this association of needs with intrinsic lacks cannot at all, ch"v, ever apply to Hashem (and I'm fairly certain that Rabbi Friedman has always been utterly removed from any such association). In sum, logically, our default perspective based on our life experience is that a need exists only where a lack exists, and this seems like the only perspective available.
But....
There is a different source for a need other than a lack in the needer. That occurs when the "need" is generated as the result of the needer's desire for something or the needer's want for something. The desire itself is not reflective of any lack; in fact, the desire might very much bespeak a completeness and a wholeness. The desire can come from such a deep and elevated source within a person that it is actually expressive of a "no lack" or a "lack of a lack." For example, let's say a person has developed to such a level that he is holy and righteous, perfect midos, etc. A tzadik. Now this person wants to open up a huge chessed organization to help poor people. The "want" and "desire" bespeaks the person's completeness (there's no lack there). And once the person has this desire, this "want," now the person "needs" donors! He needs volunteers. He needs an office. Maybe he needs a warehouse. Of course, the person can stop wanting to open a chessed organization; maybe he'll decide to build a youtube channel instead. Logically, it emerges that when the person ends his desire to build the chessed organization, his need for donors, volunteers, office-space, etc. evaporates. And just as before he had the desire, the person had no lacks in himself, so too after he had the desire, he had no lacks, and after he abandoned the desire, he had no lacks in himself. Nothing changes or changed within him through this process. But so long as he has the desire for some result, for some purpose, he has needs relative to the achievement of that result, the fulfillment of that purpose -- the gratification of his desire. Another example (and a very mundane one): Let's say a person wants to go watch the Olympics in person. He doesn't lack anything in himself because he wants to go to the Olympics. He just wants to go -- it's something that interests him and he enjoys spectator sports. Okay, so following on the heels of that want, this person now has needs. Now this person needs a ticket for admission. He needs a way to get to Paris. And if he drops his desire to go to the Olympics, his needs disappear; conversely, so long as he maintains his desire, he maintains his needs. A final holy example: a bochur wants to be in the top shiur of a huge yeshiva. This desire does not bespeak a lack in the bochur at all. In fact, having such a yearning reflects a completeness and a holiness in the bochur (call the shadchanim!). As soon as the bochur has this desire, immediately he has needs: he needs to get admitted to the yeshiva. He needs the rebbe to teach the shiur. Etc.
It seems to me that this is what Rabbi Friedman is taking about when he speaks of Hashem needing us. Via the Torah, Hashem revealed to us His desires and His wants. There are dozens if not hundreds of sources expressing Hashem's desires and yearnings and ratzonos. Hey, that's the whole concept of a tachlis (purpose). Underlying every purpose is the desire to achieve that purpose. That's what tachlis means -- the end in mind. The place or goal where one wants to get to. Hashem revealed to us His purpose for choosing to create the world. He wants something (or some things) to happen with this -- or, in this -- creation. Of course, we can't expect to understand why He wants these outcomes, why He has His purposes and reasons for making a world, but we have to believe Him when He tells us what they are. And Once He has these purposes (which are just wants and desires and yearnings in disguise), He has needs. He is not lacking in Himself, ch"v. But He is lacking the fulfillment of His desires and purposes, until they are, BE"H, fulfilled. Yes, of course, He can abandon the desires or modify them, but until He does that, He has needs relative to the fulfillment of those desires and yearnings and purposes. And since Hashem told us that the Torah is eternal, we can assume that His expressed desires, wants, and yearnings -- His purposes -- are still ongoing. Thus, so too are His needs.
@@WhyWhy-jbj I read your essay. I appreciate your examples of this tzadik who wants to open an organization, etc. I can see how we may say that he "needs" so and so to run his organization. But I still have several issues with this. Firstly, all those "needs" of those things in order to run his organization stem from his original "want" to open one, thus, they all fall under the umbrella of his "wants" and we only loosely call them "needs." Secondly, this whole discussion is simply a result of the English language where "want" and "need" are sometimes loosely interchangeable. This should have no bearing, however, on Torah concepts which were given in Hebrew (Lashon HaKodesh). I have yet to find one legitimate source that says "Hashem tzarikh (needs) et hamitzvot" - Gd needs the mitzvot. The holy texts are very precise, and the word that does appear many times over, as I'm sure you know, is Ratzon, which unequivocally translates as "will/desire/want." Gd wants us to do the mitzvot and follow His instruction because that would create the best life for us, the most fulfillment and meaning and connection to Him in this world and the next, and naturally He is very "pleased" when we do so, not because His essence needs it, but because He WANTS the best for us just like any parent WANTS the best for their children. It's really quite simple.
Friedman purposely blurs the lines between need and want in the English language, because he knows it sounds taboo and it will produce more clicks and attention and book sales. He knows that when most people hear the word "need" they automatically think of the first definition that yo gave, that it implies a deficiency in the needer. If he just used the word "want," all of this could have been avoided, but he chose not to deliberately.
@@yosefzayrov8229 Thanks for writing back. You are correct in that the key problem here is that it is hard to find a source that uses the word in Loshon haKodesh for "need" when it comes to Hashem. (Maybe you know all the sources, but I don't. The few very learned people whom I've asked agree with you and do not recall such language in any of our holy sources). Nevertheless, the concept of needing, I think, is still applicable to Hashem by virtue of the logic that I explained above. See, I'm not sure that "wants" and "needs" are loosely interchangeable as you say. They mean different things. But, as concepts, they are linked. Very much so. Logically and inextricably. Once there is a want, there is a need for that want to be gratified. That's just logical. A want is not gratuitous -- it bespeaks a clear goal. And if the goal is dependent on the actions of others, then the wanter needs those actions of others to be done. There's really no other way to look at it. You snuck the word "essence" into your essay, and of course, I agree that Hashem's essence doesn't need, but we are not at all speaking of Hashem's essence. Ever. By the way, if you play your logic out, you seem to be okay with saying that Hashem is "pleased" but not that He "needs" -- why is the former okay but not the latter (even assuming that we are not talking about His essence)? You are fine with saying that He is "pleased" (and obviously you are not referring to His essence being "pleased"), so then why not also say that He "needs" (but obviously not His essence)?
Again, Hashem can do anything (obviously), and He was not forced, so to speak, to want what He wants, but He does clearly want. And once He limited Himself (I trust you understand what I mean) by wanting something -- or some things -- He is, so to speak, stuck if those wants depend on the actions of His created beings (which He also didn't have to create). And since, for example, He wants to bestow His good on some being other than Himself, He needs that being to take His goodness. I just don't know any other way to understand it. Of another example, once He wants that the whole created world knows His Oneness via the agency of Klal Yisroel, He needs Klal Yisroel to do their job. Of course, He can at any time just return everything to tohu vavohu and stop wanting a creation to exist. But so long as He limits Himself to have His wants, after that limitation is a reality, He needs us.
The oft-cited-by-Chabad Midrash Tanchuma, parshas Naso 16:1 clearly states that Hashem wants a dwelling place in the lower realms (בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁבָּרָא הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא אֶת הָעוֹלָם, נִתְאַוָּה שֶׁיְּהֵא לוֹ דִּירָה בַּתַּחְתּוֹנִים כְּמוֹ שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּעֶלְיוֹנִים). Note that the language states that "from the moment that Hashem created the world" -- i.e., when He limited Himself -- then He had the desire. The Midrash continues: "Then [Adam] transgressed against His commandment. HKBH said this to him, ‘This is what I desired (yearned for), that I would have a dwelling place in the lower realms just like I have in the upper realms. Now I have given you one command, you have not kept it.' Immediately, HKBH removed His Divine Presence [up] to the first firmament..." This source is great because it clearly shows that Hashem has desires and that His desires rise and fall with the conduct of people. See the rest of the Midrash there where other transgressions caused Hashem to withdraw His divine presence further upward and where acts of obedience to His commands caused Hashem to return His divine presence back down. In effect, once Hashem has a want that causes Him to rely on the actions of people, He needs those actions to fulfill His want. I'm not sure why that is problematic to say.
See also Tehillim 68:53תנוּ עֹ֗ז לֵֽאלֹ֫הִ֥ים עַֽל־יִשְׂרָאֵ֥ל גַּאֲוָת֑וֹ וְ֝עֻזּ֗וֹ בַּשְּׁחָקִֽים ׃ (Give power to G-d, His grandeur is upon the Jewish People, and His power is in the Heavens) and see Nefesh haChaim, Part 1, Chapter 3, explaining, based on the Zohar haKadosh, that when the Jewish People do mitzvos, they give strength to Hashem in His battles in the beis din above with the supernal prosecutor against the Jewish People (and when they do the opposite, ch"v, it weakens Him). Why does Hashem need to go to the beis din above -- He can do whatever He wants, no? But, He set up a system of justice and He limits Himself, in general, to operate within its confines. Once He has done that, He needs the Jewish People to help Him out, so to speak. I'm open to hearing another way to characterize this piece from the Nefesh haChaim based on the holy Zohar, but it seems to me that it is reasonable to say that Hashem "needs."
To be sure, if we think of a need as bespeaking a lack in the needer, then 100,000% we cannot apply that to Hashem. And I'm fairly confident that Rabbi Friedman is also a million years away from that. But once Hashem limits Himself, then we have something to talk about, I think.
By the way, I don't think Rabbi Manis is looking for clickbait. (First of all, the idea of Hashem needing us goes back in Chabad at least to the Tzemach Tzedek and I'm fairly certain until the Alter Rebbe. I'm not holding in their Torahs, but there is a well-known Chabad story where one of the early rebbes tells a chossid to stop thinking about what he needs and start thinking about what he's needed for. It's fairly understood that the simple pshat is that the chossid should think of others whom he can help, but since part of the chossid's request from the Rebbe was for parnassa to help marry off the chossid's relatives (i.e., he was, in fact, thinking of the needs of others), it's also understood that the Rebbe meant that the chossid should think about Hashem's needs.) In any case, I agree with you that Rabbi Friedman might be trying to get people's attention, but not for the money. I think he wants people to think through their hashkafas: "Did Hashem have a purpose in creating the world? In creating you?" "Yes, okay what's your purpose?" "To learn Torah and do mitzvos? Okay, why?" "You said to get close to Hashem and benefit from His divine effulgence? Hey, but that's a reward and then you're serving for a reward!" "Oh, you say that you do the mitzvos since it's good for you? But that's still a reward and selfish!" "Oh, you want to tell me that you do the mitzvos to connect to Hashem -- why? For you to enjoy that connection? -- but again that's selfish and for reward!" "Oh, you want to say that you do mitzvos for Hashem and to fulfill His purpose -- that's why you do the mitzvos? For Hashem? But, according to you, He doesn't need your mitzvos! so how are you helping Him?" .....
Hashem should give us clarity and the joy of doing His ratzone.
@@WhyWhy-jbj I see you’ve really put a lot of thought into this. I will respond to some points you raised:
“See, I'm not sure that "wants" and "needs" are loosely interchangeable as you say. They mean different things.” - This is irrelevant. My point all along. What these two words mean does not matter to the essence of the argument because the essence of the argument is the truth of Gd as taught by Torah and Judaism, which is transmitted originally through Lashon Hakodesh, Hebrew. Meaning, in all honesty, we should be having this whole conversation in Hebrew, and as soon as a defender of freidman’s position opens his mouth and says the words “השם צריך אותנו” - ‘Hashem needs us,’ he automatically loses the argument because of how absolutely absurd it sounds.
“You are fine with saying that He is "pleased" (and obviously you are not referring to His essence being "pleased"), so then why not also say that He "needs" (but obviously not His essence)?” - I’m fine with saying he is “pleased” because that is He says Himself in His Torah. The text matters, our entire religion and culture is based on keeping the integrity of our holy texts. The Torah speaks in many places about sacrifices being “a satisfying (pleasing) aroma to Hashem (the Name of Essence).” See Numbers 15:14 and 28:2, Leviticus 26:31, Genesis 8:21 just to name a few. And yet nowhere will you find it saying “Gd needs you.” Thus, how could I use a language to describe Gd that He does not use about Himself? Stay tuned to the end of this essay where I will show a bombshell of a textual proof against this foolish viewpoint.
“And once He limited Himself (I trust you understand what I mean) by wanting something…” - I believe you are referring to the concept of צימצום. But you are mistaken. Hashem wanting is not a limitation on Himself. Hashem’s desire and Him are one and the same (famously put forth by Rambam and others). His will is eternal and always existed just like Him (this is actually one of the things that Freidman got right). It was in order to fulfill that will that צימצום happened. Thus, His will led to צימצום, not the other way around. So this whole paragraph you wrote about it was for naught.
“(בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁבָּרָא הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא אֶת הָעוֹלָם, נִתְאַוָּה שֶׁיְּהֵא לוֹ דִּירָה בַּתַּחְתּוֹנִים כְּמוֹ שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּעֶלְיוֹנִים). Note that the language states that "from the moment that Hashem created the world" -- i.e., when He limited Himself -- then He had the desire.” - Not really. בשעה means ‘at the time,’ meaning at the same time, simultaneously, His will fueled the existence into being. I am familiar with this Midrash. You did a lot of mental gymnastics explaining it but it does not say at all that Gd needs us. It just describes the consequences of what happens when man does not fulfill the will of Gd and what happens when man does.
“In effect, once Hashem has a want that causes Him to rely on the actions of people, He needs those actions to fulfill His want.” - No, He WANTS those actions to fulfill His want.
“Once He has done that, He needs the Jewish People to help Him out, so to speak.” - Help Him out? Do you hear yourself? Do you not see how this is blatantly putting limits on Gd? Hashem created the system of justice in the Heavenly courts and chooses to abide by them, and even so we find plenty of occasions where He makes exceptions.
“To be sure, if we think of a need as bespeaking a lack in the needer, then 100,000% we cannot apply that to Hashem. And I'm fairly confident that Rabbi Friedman is also a million years away from that.” - Then why doesn’t he say so?? Why doesn’t he spell out this fundamental point??? He just continues to double and triple down on his nonsense.
“But once Hashem limits Himself, then we have something to talk about, I think.” - Hashem limiting Himself is an advanced kabbalistic concept, not for beginners. Just because He “limits” Himself in certain ways doesn’t allow people like Freidman to invent more limitations on Him.
“Hey, but that's a reward and then you're serving for a reward!"” - Yeah! So what? What’s wrong with that? Is it not kosher to serve Hashem for the reward? Show me anywhere in the Torah where it says so. In fact, Hashem Himself spells it out several times the reason why we should do the mitzvoth and follow His laws: “…in order to it to be good for you (i.e. us) and your children after you…. In order for you to have long days…” See Deuteronomy 5:16, 6:18, 22:7, 12:28, 12:25, 4:40, should I keep going?? Nowhere did Gd ever say “Do it for Me because I need you to do it.” See further the blessings listed in Parashat Bechukotai and Ki Tavo, where the Torah lists rewards that a person will get for following Gds command.
Now, to address the Mishnah in Pirkei Avot 1:3 that he loves to quote where Antignos says, “do not be like servants who serve the master in the expectation of receiving a reward, but be like servants who serve the master without the expectation of receiving a reward.” This is speaking about the ideal situation where one brings himself to serve Gd purely altruistically not for the reward. This takes years of self-refinement to accomplish and the large majority of people are NOT on this level when they first enter the fold of religion. Simple basic reward and punishment is the entry level where most people start, it’s what gets them in the door, it’s what kids are taught first in yeshivah, you know why? Two reasons: 1) it makes sense; 2) ITS TRUE! No matter how altruistic you end up becoming, it does not mean that the reward vanishes! It is there and it will be there because Gd says so throughout the Torah, and all of the commentaries explain it as such! If Friedman is doing kiruv, how is talking to beginners on a level of ultimate-righteousness and altruism? Can you teach someone calculus if they don’t know algebra? Friedman fails to mention the commentaries on this Mishnah (see Rambam’s commentary) that two of Antignos’s students (Tzadok and Baitos) misunderstood him and branched off and created reform movements who tried to sabotage Rabbinic Judaism for centuries afterward. Why? Because they understood that their teacher was telling them that there is no reward! Which is exactly what Friedman insinuates over and over, that there is no reward and punishment as classically understood.
“Hashem should give us clarity and the joy of doing His ratzone.” - There you go, now you got it! His Ratzon - רצון - ‘Will’ - not His needs.
And now for the kicker: BaMidbar Rabbah 21:17:
“Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, [Gd says]: My creations do not need My creations. In all your days, have you heard that they say: ‘Please water this vine with wine so that it will produce much wine?’ ‘Water this olive tree with oil so that it will produce much oil?’ My creations do not need My creations, and I need My creations?”
The Midrash says that Gd rhetorically says “I need my creations?” Implying that He obviously does not.
It should be thoroughly understood now that Freidman is wrong and needs to retract.
Total heresy. Stay away from Friedman.
Thanks for the warning, I'm wondering if you read my posts. Sorry, a bit lengthy, but interesting, I think. I'm curious what you think about them.
@@WhyWhy-jbj I just did. Here is my response. One of the 13 basic principles of faith as enunciated by the Ram Bam is that Hashem is unlimited. He is not limited by time. He is the past, the present and the future all at once.
He is not limited by needs or wants or desires. Needs and wants are humans characteristics, some of them even relate to the animal soul, the lowest part of the soul.
Whenever the Torah suggest that Hashem “wants us” to do something, it is his attribute of kindness manifesting to the world. Everything Hashem does is out of love / Kindness for his people.
It is important to understand that we do not have a full understanding of Hashem. He has not revealed himselft entirely to the world for no one can fully grasp a full understanding of Hashem and yet live, not even Moshe despite being granted the highest level of prophecy of all humans. The Torah says that Hashem passed in front of Moshe and shielded his eyes with His hand as to be prevent him to see His face but allowed him to see the back knot of Hos tefilin. That is obviously a metaphor to explain what I just said.
We have to understand that we will never understand certain things and that is part of our test of faith.
Yet, one can study the texts and analysis and grasp a huge understanding. One lifetime of dedicated Torah study and practice is not enough to grasp everything what there is.
However Friedman’s mistake shows a deep lack of basic understanding and an arrogance that has been called out by many Gadolei Hador in both Israel and the US.
For more sources on an interpretation of the Torah that is careful not to attribute human characteristics to Hashem, I suggest the ArtScroll Torah with the commentary by Onkelos.
I also suggest the channel by Rabbi Yaron Reuven who goes into deep explanations of why Friedman is wrong.
@@BarKochba555 Please read the first three chapters of Worldmask.
Thanks for your reply!
Please explain to me why Hashem uses the term "wants" all over the Torah -- both sh'b'kasav and sh'b'al peh. Never mind the dozens of others of so-called anthropomorphisms. Please don't tell me that they are human characteristics -- I didn't ask Hashem to use them when referring to Himself, but He did. That means that these "emotions" are real, true, emmess. Not just "human."
No one argues that Hashem is in any way limited, ch"v. At the same time, He has "emotions."
How do you know that when Hashem "wants us" to do something, it is His attribute of kindness? Where did you learn that? Only Hashem can tell you something like that. Maybe He did, and it's in our mesorah of sources. And like you say, from the texts, we can grasp a huge understanding. I agree. What's yours if not what Rabbi Friedman says? Does Hashem's attribute of kindness "want" us to do something or have something. What does that mean? Does Hashem "want us" to do something? Does He "want" to give us something? If so, then how do you explain that Hashem "wants"? You also have to use the term and others like it, so what do you mean when you use such terms in reference to Hashem (meaning, what do you think Judaism holds regarding the use of such terms -- which, by the way, is like me asking "What do you think Hashem wants us to understand when He uses the term "wants" in reference to Himself." Ironic, right?).
Will Hashem be "disappointed" if He doesn't get what He wants (because, for example, we don't do what we're supposed to)? Or, will He be "upset"? I mean, He does get angry in the Torah -- will He get angry if we do not take what He wants to give?
I'm sorry, you and all the other commenters have to explain Hashem's "emotions" in a way that is consistent to all of His "emotions" before you can attack Rabbi Friedman. And, really, forget him -- as a Jew, you need (and I need) to have a clarity in hashkafa. What is going on in this world -- why is this world here, why are we here, what is Hashem "doing" here, etc.?
Happy to learn more from you, be"H.
Why is this joung man so aggressive???
Is he saying, God is only human???
This is called a fractal presentation of the garden of Eden.
It’s the first marital argument
And the words of the profit are written on the…
Wow, that sounds so transactional!
Transactional relationships never work out.
This is an obstruction of the seven hermetic principles, gender