Take the 2-minute tour ×
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. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I have heard that Sha'ar Ha'Yichud of Chovos Ha'Levavos is controversial, and that one needs a rebbe in order to learn it. What does the author say that is so difficult to understand?

share|improve this question
add comment

4 Answers 4

The philosophical approach is considered by many to be an "Emunah minefield" for those who do not have proper guidance. The popular "Lev Tov" edition of Chovos Halevavos (with a translation/commentary by R' Pinchas Lieberman) has a lengthy introduction to Shaar HaYichud, in which he cites these views at length and in detail.

share|improve this answer
    
This tells a person where to find the answer but does not actually give an answer. Can someone edit this answer and add the relevant information? –  avi Jan 6 at 7:31
add comment

I believe I heard in the name of the former Rosh Yeshiva of Chofetz Chaim Rav Henach Lebowitz ZS"L not to read it because it is not good to place the entire belief of G-d on science.

share|improve this answer
2  
Please explain the downvote. –  Hacham Gabriel Feb 3 '12 at 3:42
2  
i upvoted to counteract. –  josh waxman Dec 27 '12 at 13:07
    
+1 ACDN were here… –  HodofHod Dec 27 '12 at 23:16
    
I read in the below translation that the Chasam Sofer would teach it and say kaddish afterwards. so he considered it torah –  ray Dec 30 '12 at 12:59
    
Thats True he did say that. –  shlomo Jun 4 '13 at 3:27
add comment

In addition to the issue of whether the philosophical proof of G-d's existence is a proper approach, my own analysis of Sha'ar HaYichud is that the particular philosophical proof he uses is simply incorrect. Some mathematical premises that he relies on were proved incorrect in the 19th century.

share|improve this answer
    
another answer to Hawking's mistake is that the author did not mean to say mathematically that one infinity cannot be greater than another infinity but rather as the Marpe Lenefesh commentary there says: "If we were able to take out a finite part from something infinite then perforce it must be composed of two opposite natures - finite and infinite, and this is an impossibility" –  ray May 8 '13 at 7:05
    
@R.S. Where can we see Hawkings' claims so we can evaluate the merit of your alleged disproof? And btw Hawkings didn't live in the 19th century, so I don't think that's what Chanoch is referring to. –  Double AA May 8 '13 at 14:40
    
@DoubleAA who said 19th century?? see the link Chanoch cited: it quotes Hawkings there: "Chovot HaLevavot's Shaar HaYichud is incorrect in its mathematical proof of God's unity In chapter 5, he introduces 3 mathematical propositions on which he rests his proof. One of these propositions is that "That the infinite should have parts is inconceivable. ... Let us assume that a thing is actually infinite..." Hawkings is making a false assumption that this is a "mathematical proof". The commentaries point out that the author used "actually infinite" to negate this. Yes in math u can have –  ray May 8 '13 at 17:10
    
all sorts of infinities but as the commentaries point out there, that the mind can conceive all sorts of things which are not possible. "ACTUALLY INFINITE" means in the real world not in mathematical abstractions. –  ray May 8 '13 at 17:11
2  
"Actually infinite" is a quote from the shaar yichud not from me. this is exactly my point. the "refutation of Hawkings" assumes the shaar yichud is bringing a mathematical proof. Whereas the shaar yichud says "actually infinite" specifically to negate this. Marpe Lenefesh commentary in ch.5: (on the words if we consider in our thoughts): This means that the thing to consider is actually infinite, but for something which is not actually infinite but is just theoretical, that the mind imagines something infinite - from this one cannot bring a proof, because the power of imagination –  ray May 8 '13 at 18:16
show 6 more comments

I asked this question to Rabbi Mordechai Kornfeld, the rosh kollel of iyun hadaf in harnof http://dafyomi.co.il

he replied: "There is a difference of opinion among the Torah authorities as to whether this section should be studied by the typical student of the Torah. Many Torah luminaries maintain that one should not seek philosophical proofs of G-d's existence. Belief in Hash-m should be based on the Mesorah (tradition) that we received from our elders and mentors, the study of Hash-m's wondrous Torah, and the many ways He manifests Himself in His creations and in our daily lives."

UPDATE:

(after more study of the shaar yichud)

ray: The reason the shaar yichud is so difficult is because the author tries to explain logically why we exist. ultimately this involves trying to understand that which is Eternal, and the Eternal is beyond the grasp of human logic, since it is beyond our cause/effect way of understanding things. the shaar yichud itself concludes that it is better to stay away from logical inquiry and to try to know God through His deeds as written in ch.10:

Therefore, you should exert your mind until you know the Creator through the evidences of His works and not strive to know Him in His glorious essence. For He is exceedingly close to you from the side of His deeds but infinitely remote in any representation of His essence or comparison with it. As already stated, we will never be able to find Him in this way. When you arrive at the stage where you abandon (trying to find Him) through your thoughts and senses because He cannot be grasped in this way, and you instead find Him in the evidence of His deeds, as though He were inseparable from you - this is the pinnacle of knowledge of Him which the prophet exhorts us on.

share|improve this answer
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

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.