Mi Yodeya is a question and answer site for those who base their lives on Jewish law and tradition and anyone interested in learning more. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

According to the Shaar Yichud of Chovos Halevavos, an Eternal being must be infinite and everywhere since whatever is finite is necessarily bounded and whatever is bounded is preceded by the framework which set its boundaries, hence it cannot be Eternal, because eternal by definition means nothing preceding it.

If it is so that God must be everywhere, then how are we to understand the absolute unity of God?

We cannot say "part" of Him is here and "part" of Him is there since that contradicts the Unity of God.

Neither can we say that He is entirely here and entirely there since that would mean 1+1=1

share|improve this question
Why can't there be two eternal things? – Double AA Mar 20 '14 at 20:01
Can you give a more precise source in the Chovos Halevavos? – Y ez Mar 20 '14 at 20:03
@YEZ it's spread out throughout but see chapter 7 argument 4 – ray Mar 20 '14 at 20:28
@DoubleAA because then each one is bounded and whatever is bounded is preceded by the framework of existence which set its boundaries. therefore neither is eternal. – ray Mar 20 '14 at 20:31
@ray That's circular. It's not a problem if the framework is also eternal. – Double AA Mar 20 '14 at 20:43

Spacial location is a property of physical matter. Because of the fact that matter is finite and cannot occupy two different places at the same time, it must occupy only a specific location. G-d is not limited by that restriction and can occupy all places at once. This does not mean that different parts or different copies of Him occupy different places, but that the same G-d occupies all those different places simultaneously. Other non-material things share this curious attribute. For example, the mathematical rule that 1 + 1 = 2 holds true in all places in the universe, but it is not a different rule in each place (so that we could add them together and say there are two rules) or a different part of the rule in each place. The same rule exists in all places simultaneosly.

share|improve this answer
Matter can occupy the same place at the same time. At least some kinds can (I think). – Double AA Mar 24 '14 at 21:03
Then your answer is just an analogy? – Double AA Mar 24 '14 at 21:14
@DoubleAA Reading the link in your comment yields the following quote: "Since bosons with the same energy can occupy the same place in space, bosons are often force carrier particles. In contrast, fermions are usually associated with matter..." In other words, particles that can occupy the same space are not considered matter. – Baruch Mar 24 '14 at 21:17
at the quantum mechanical scale particles behave like waves also so you can't ask from there. – ray Mar 25 '14 at 5:50
@ray The point is at every scale everything behaves somewhat like we think of waves and somewhat like we think of particles. Changing scale doesn't change the thing. – Double AA Mar 30 '14 at 19:56

That is the whole point - the Absolute Unity of G-d means not that there is 1 and not 2, but rather, that there is nothing except Him. The overwhelming multiplicity of our reality is just one form of expression of His Oneness.

Now this concept seems paradoxical to us, but Rashi on the first verse of Shma brings the quote from Zecharyah that at the end of days, G-d will be One and His Name will be One, so it will be revealed how exactly is the multiplicity we see is an expression of His Oneness. Currently, however, it is unrevealed.

share|improve this answer
can you please explain the statement "The overwhelming multiplicity of our reality is just one form of expression of His Oneness." – ray Mar 20 '14 at 20:29
@gt6989b whats the paradox, Everything IS G-D! I think you answered the question very clearly. If everything is Hashe-m there's no here nor there ... – R. Mo Mar 20 '14 at 20:32
@R.Mo does that mean part of Him is in me and part of Him is in you? or perhaps He is in me and in you simultaneously, but then that's 1+1=1 – ray Mar 20 '14 at 20:35
@ray it's not that He is in you (that would imply there is something in you other than Him as well), it's that you are a part of Him. – gt6989b Mar 20 '14 at 20:39
that is exactly my point - "a part" is a contradiction to absolute Unity. An absolute Unity has no parts or plurality in any sense whatsoever. – ray Mar 20 '14 at 20:41

As in every philosophical question ( jewish, all the more so) there are many different versions of the same answer. Those answer will have different approaches based on background (chassidic, litvish, etc..) and education, but IMHO, from what I have heard and read, ( sorry sources allude me ) the root to all these approaches are like we say in the Shema "Echad". G-D is one, i.e. and there is nothing else. Hence the part of G-D thats in me and you are part of one whole. The misconception that a "part of g-d" is then a disruption in unity is brought about because of our human minds. That doesn't mean its not so. There are many things beyond our comprehension, ( calculus for me is one of those topics, among many others.) The 'issue' arises when you have individuals that understand all the this world has to offer intellectually, and when they come to a concept that can not be processed by a human mind, it gets questioned and argued on. In judaism, this is where our Emunah and Bitachon come in. Point being: the answer to this question is Emunah.

Editors note: this is not an attack on any individual, group, nor movement. It is also not to say we should not ask. It is my answer to this question (and to any other question beyond human comprehension)

share|improve this answer

I question your assumptions, however:

The idea of "parts" does not refer to things which are arbitrarily distinct within one whole. A rubber bouncy ball is not made of parts just because it takes up space - it is all part of the same whole, as opposed to a basketball consists of the sphere which bounces, the hollow inside which maintains its firmness, and the piece that allows the pump needle to insert air without letting air out. Hashem is One in that He does not have one "part" of Him responsible for kindness, one part for judgment, one part for mercy etc., rather Hashem is one in that all these behaviors are accomplished by one distinct "faculty." This is how the Ramchal describes Hashem's oneness in Derech Hashem (1:1:5) - מציאות פשוט בלי הרכבה - a simple existence, one that does not consist of compounding. This is the same use of simple that is commonly used in systems - simple and complex systems. Even if we could refer to Hashem as "being in all places" this would not result in "parts" of Him in different places, as all places would be one "big part."

Regarding your assumption that Hashem's unity means that He is in all places, Sha'ar HaYichud never states this and I do not think it is a result of his intent: there are two distinct aspects when we discuss the Creator. One is His עצם, His "essence," and the other is His מדות, His "attributes," the way He interacts with the world. Hashem's manifestation in this world, the way He interacts, is very much not singular in having no distinct parts - there are 13 distinct elements of that interaction. (The Kuzari explains that this itself is an expression of greater One-ness, that even apparent disparity comes from one unified source.) When we discuss Hashem being One, we are referring to His "essence" - there is no physical location to Hashem's "essence." All of His actions come from one cohesive plan and purpose, but the actions are split into parts, as is all of the physical world. Hashem does not have an "essence" in the physical world, and from the perspective of Hashem's "essence," physical existence does not exist (see Nefesh HaChaim Sha'ar Gimmel ch. 2 - עד שתוכל לומר שאין כאן שום נברא ועולם כלל רק הכל מלא עצמות אחדותו הפשוט). The discussion of His being one and having no parts is a discussion which precedes physical existence - thus the Rambam in several places (see for example Moreh 1:73) equates Hashem's one-ness with His being non-physical. There was never an attempt to apply the Unity that is being described to physical existence - it is a discussion of qualities and domains, not of how large or old something is.

share|improve this answer
a rubber ball is not made of parts? has atoms, etc. – ray Mar 30 '14 at 20:42
@ray you totally missed the point. That is not the idea of parts - parts are an expression of purpose or function. The parts under discussion are not spacial areas. There are no parts of a rubber ball, it is all one part, as every "bit" of it is of the same function and purpose. – Y ez Mar 30 '14 at 20:46
G-d being everywhere in space never meant exclusively in space. obviously He transcends spacetime because it is His creation. – ray Mar 30 '14 at 20:55
@ray that was the point of my citation to Nefesh HaChaim - Hashem in His "essence" is specifically not in space or in time - space is a definition and therefore limitation, no matter how much space. There is no such thing as space with reference to Hashem's "essence." – Y ez Mar 30 '14 at 21:02
obviously... space is His creation as the Midrash (Bereishis Raba 68:9) expounded the verse "place is by Me" (Shemos 33:21) – ray Mar 30 '14 at 21:07

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.