Tell me more ×
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.
up vote 14 down vote favorite

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

4 Answers

up vote 0 down vote

here's a translation with commntaries. http://dafyomireview.com/article.php?docid=397 (a quote from there:I once heard Rabbi Zev Leff say in a lecture on Jewish outreach: "in the time of the Rambam people were really seeking, and bringing intellectual proofs was beneficial, but today the biggest question on people's minds is whether to put ketchup or mustard on their hotdogs".)

this new edition:http://www.feldheim.com/authors/ibn-paquda-r-bachya-ben-joseph/toras-chovas-halevavos-hachadosh-3-vol-hebrew-only.html brings down many of the different opinions. such as that it was written for his generation but we are not capable of understanding the deep logic. it says there the Chasam Sofer would study it with his talmidim and even say kaddish d'rabanan on it so he held it was torah based.

share|improve this answer
1  
If the biggest question is to put ketchup or mustard then what's the "problem" of people reading it now a days?! If apparently it won't mean so much to anyone... – Yehoshua Dec 27 '12 at 21:13
if something doesnt make sense they wont bother to think it through but will instead use it as an excuse to follow their hotdogs and reject judaism – R.S. Dec 27 '12 at 21:37
People debate that? I thought everyone agreed ketchup is the obvious choice. – Double AA♦ Dec 27 '12 at 22:10
up vote 3 down vote

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
1  
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 – R.S. Dec 30 '12 at 12:59
the intent of the shaar yichud is not to place belief of G-d on science but only to SUPPLEMENT one's faith with proofs to strengthen it as written in the Tov Halevanon ch.7: Tov Halevanon: The scientist/investigator, from the role he assumes as investigator, it is his way to believe only that which he has clarified through logical proofs. While the "believer", who believes that which has not been clarified to himself through logical proofs, has already gone out of the role of "scientist/investigator" and has no business debating with them. And now that we are here today, – R.S. May 8 at 18:22
show 1 more comment
up vote 6 down vote

In addition to the issues of whether the philsophical proof to God's existance 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
correction: Hawkings says it is incorrect. hawkings is using mathematical proofs which dont hold in real practice. in mathematics, the mind can suppose all sorts of things which are not possible in actuality. for example, there are an infinite number of points between 1 and 2 therefore something can be finite yet have infinite parts. answer: false - a point is not a part since it is infinitely small. it is just a mathematical abstraction with no basis in reality. likewise, the supposed "infinite integer set" hawkings is supposing is just a mathematical abstraction. continued: – R.S. May 8 at 6:47
you cannot make something of infinite character from something of finite character. since the whole is the sum of its parts. and to have infinite finite parts is a mathematical abstraction which is impossible in actual practice. we see from this answer the danger of learning shaar yichud. – R.S. May 8 at 6:51
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" – R.S. May 8 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 at 14:40
1  
"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 – R.S. May 8 at 18:16
show 10 more comments
up vote 13 down vote

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' Yosef Lieberman) has a lengthy introduction to Shaar HaYichud, in which he cites these views at length and in detail.

share|improve this answer

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.