Does God need us?

In Nitzavim, God says:

This commandment [in the singular], that I command you today, is not hidden from you and is not distant. [Deut. 30:11]

The Midrash explains:

What [single] “commandment” [does the Torah refer to]? The Rabbis say: It is a difficult concept to state. [Maharzu: It seems inappropriate to say that because it implies we can "help" God.] ... It means: “If you observe the Torah, you have done a charitable act both for you and for Me.” [Deut. R. 8:5]

In other words, God derives some benefit from Jews following the Torah.

On Yom Kippur, we say:

Avinu Malkenu 'aseh l'maancha im lo l'maanenu -- Our Father, our King, act for Your sake if not for ours.

This implies that God has a stake in forgiving us.

The Psalmist says:

תְּנוּ עֹז לֵאלֹהִים T'nu 'oz l'Elokim -- Give strength to God. [Ps. 68:35]

The Midrash adds:

Rabbi Azariah said in the name of Rabbi Yehudah ben Rabbi Simone: When Israel perform the will of the Omnipresent they add strength to the heavenly power; as it is said [in Psalms], “To God we render strength” [Ps. 60:14]. When, however, Israel does not perform the will of the Omnipresent, they weaken, if it is possible to say so, the great power of He Who is Above; as it is written [in the Torah], “You weakened the Rock that begot you.” [Deut. 32:18]. [Lamentations Rabbah 1:33]

The Psalmist says:

Ve-atta kadosh, yoshev tehillot Yisrael. And You are the Holy One, enthroned upon the praises of Israel. [Ps. 22:4]

This implies that without the praises of Israel to sustain Him, God is not enthroned.

The Midrash goes further:

It is written [in Psalms], “Your throne is established of old.” [Ps. 93:2]. Rabbi Berekiah said in the name of Rabbi Abbahu: Although “You are... everlasting” [Ps. 93:2], Your throne was not firmly established, nor were You known in Your world, until Your children [Moses and the people of Israel] recited the Song: [He is my God, and I will praise him; my father’s God, and I will exalt him.] [Exodus 15:1-2] This is what the Israelites said: In truth, You existed both before and after You had created Your world, but You were standing, as it were… Since… we recited the Song before You, only then did Your kingdom and throne become firmly established [and you could sit!] [Exodus Rabbah 23:1]

Rabbi Menachem Mendel of Kotzk said: “Why was man created? To perfect his soul? No. To lift up the heavens!”

Sifre Devarim [Sifre Devarim 346; also Pesikta de Rav Kahane 12:6] says clearly that God needs us because, when we keep our part of the covenant, we not only affirm God's existence, we allow God's existence. In the words of the Rashbi (Rabbi Shim’on bar Yochai):

-It is written [in Exodus]: “This is my God and I will glorify Him” [Ex. 15:2]. This means: “When I acknowledge Him, He is glorified, but when I do not acknowledge Him, He is glorified only in name.”

-It is written [in Deuteronomy]: “Because I proclaim the name of the Lord, [ascribe greatness to our God].” [Deut. 32:3] [This means,] when I call His name, He is great, but when I don’t… [it is as if He is not great].

-It is written [in Isaiah], “You are my witnesses, said the Lord… and I am God” [Isaiah 43:10]. This means: “When you are My witnesses, I am God, but when you are not My witnesses, it is as if I am not God.”

-It is written [in Psalms], “Unto You I lift up my eyes, O You, my enthroned One in the heavens” [Ps. 123:1]. This means: “If it weren’t for me, it is as if You would not be sitting in the heavens.”

The Rashbi seems to be saying that, if we do not bear witness to God, God vanishes into unreality.

The Midrash [Exodus Rabbah 52:5] implies God needs us to "take over" for Him:

-[Rabbi El’azar, the son of Rabbi Yosei said:] The Holy One, blessed be He, first addressed Israel as “daughter” [then “sister”, then “mother”.] -[As “daughter”,] as it says [in the Book of Psalms]: Hearken, O daughter, consider and incline your ear… [Ps. 45:11].

-When He loved Israel more, He called them “My sister”, as it says [in the Song of Songs], Open to me, my sister, my love, my dove, my undefiled; for my head is filled with dew, my locks with the drops of the night. [Song of Songs 5:2].

-And when He loved Israel even more, He called them “mother”, for it says [in Isaiah],
Listen to Me, My people; and give ear to Me, O My mother... [Isaiah 51:4]

-Thereupon Rabbi Shim’on bar Yohai arose and kissed [Rabbi El’azar] on his forehead [saying]... “If this had been the only thing I learned in life, I would have been satisfied.”

Modern Hassidic Rabbi YY Jacobson writes:

The message here is too daring to be spoken clearly. Yet the Jewish mystics picked up on it and articulated it... We became, as it were, mentors to [God], showing Him how darkness can be transformed into light, how imperfection is the beginning of deeper perfection, and how destruction is the commencement of renovation. And this is the message of the third holiday, the festival of Sukkot, when we celebrate the renewed relationship between God and Israel forged on Yom Kippur following their estrangement. From sister we turn into mother. From partners with God, we became teachers to God... Yet here is the catch: To become a healthy mother, you first need to be a daughter and a sister. [http://theyeshiva.net/Article/View/12/Do-You-Know-How-To-Be-a-Mother]

So: Is the notion that "God needs us" (1) a mainstream teaching, (2) a rejected minority opinion, or (3) a heresy?

  • 4
    G-d is not in need of anything.
    – Jonathan
    Commented Oct 4, 2019 at 18:17
  • Indeed, a Tehillim verse that we tend to say during Yizkor asks, "What is mankind that you should know him, the son of a man that you should think of him?"
    – DanF
    Commented Oct 4, 2019 at 18:59
  • It looks like you brought a number of sources suggesting that, in some sense, God does need us. You did not give any sources which reject this, so why would we think this is (2) a rejected minority opinion, or (3) a heresy?
    – simyou
    Commented Oct 5, 2019 at 19:19
  • 1
    An excellent question that unfortunately falls into a theological and philosophical trap - please define G-d, define needs and define us that we all be on the same page. The vagueness of those terms allows us to justify just about any statement - G-d is above and G-d is below, He has no emotions but He gets angry, etc. the only explanation I have is that since we can't get hold of infinity, everyone pictures a subset he's interested in.
    – Al Berko
    Commented Oct 6, 2019 at 20:16
  • 1
    @RabbiKaii -- Sorry -- extra dot! The reference is Sifre Devarim 346, not 34.6. Commented Nov 13, 2022 at 1:16

2 Answers 2


This is a very subtle question.

On the one hand:

  • G-d does not change.
  • He is beyond time, and all of history is already laid out before Him.
  • Therefore, out actions cannot affect Him.

On the other hand:

  • We are created to have a "real" existence.
  • We have an essential connection to His Essence, and He loves us.
  • Therefore, what we do matters and we are rewarded according to our deeds.

It says in Eyov 35:6-7:

אִם־חָ֭טָאתָ מַה־תִּפְעָל־בּ֑וֹ וְרַבּ֥וּ פְ֝שָׁעֶ֗יךָ מַה־תַּעֲשֶׂה־לּֽוֹ׃

If you sin, what do you do to Him? If your transgressions are many, >How do you affect Him?

אִם־צָ֭דַקְתָּ מַה־תִּתֶּן־ל֑וֹ א֥וֹ מַה־מִיָּדְךָ֥ יִקָּֽח׃

If you are righteous, What do you give Him; What does He receive >from your hand?

And in Yeshaya 63:

בְּֽכָל־צָרָתָ֣ם ׀ לא [ל֣וֹ] צָ֗ר וּמַלְאַ֤ךְ פָּנָיו֙ הֽוֹשִׁיעָ֔ם בְּאַהֲבָת֥וֹ וּבְחֶמְלָת֖וֹ ה֣וּא גְאָלָ֑ם וַֽיְנַטְּלֵ֥ם וַֽיְנַשְּׂאֵ֖ם כָּל־יְמֵ֥י עוֹלָֽם׃

In all their troubles He was troubled, And the angel of His Presence delivered them. In His love and pity He Himself redeemed them, Raised them, and exalted them All the days of old. This verse is read that "He is troubled" by our pain, but it's written that He "is not troubled" be our pain.

Our sages explain there is a level when He is pained, and a level where He isn't pained.

One analogy given to explain the relationship is like a parent and a child. The parent has an essential, unchanging love for the child. Nothing the child does can add or subtract from this love.

The parent wants or "needs" the child to make good choices because it is in the child's best interest. Yet, there is nothing inherently important to the parent about the child's choices.

For example, in one sense it doesn't affect your parent if you get an A or an F on a test. It only matters because the parent loves you and wants you to develop your potential. If getting a good grade on a test reflects on your effort and growth, then it matters.

In a similar way, our actions, mitzvos, and sins don't change or affect G-d because He "needs" anything. Yet, because He loves us and created us to need to grow, He cares about and "needs" us to make good choices so that we will develop.

This explanation is part of a very in-depth discussion of the topic in Derech Mitzvosecha, Mitzvah of Beleif in G-d, ch. 8, pg. 54a.

והוא כמו האב המדריך בנו קטן בן שנתו, להועילו באיזה ענין כמו שמלמדו לילך או לדבר ומראה לו בעשותו רצונו פנים שוחקות וממלא משאלותיו ונותן לו אגוזים וכה"ג ובעוברו רצונו מראה לו פנים זועפות ומונע משאלותיו הללו ממנו, ובאמת בדעת האב עצמו גלוי וידוע שאין הבן למיעוט השכלתו בערך שיחול שם התפעלות אליו אלא שזה מראה לו כן רק כדי שיתחזק הבן בענין הנ"ל ומראה לו איך שראוי להתפעל ממנו עפ"י שכל המצומצם כמוהו ושמתפעל בזה, ועד"ז יובן למעלה שבאמת בעצמותו ית' אין הנבראים תופסים מקום כלל שיחול עליהם שם התפעלות דכלא וכאין ואפס ממש חשיבי' ואיך יהי' התפעלו' על דבר שאינו וכאמרם אין לך דבר שחוץ ממנו כי ממך הכל (דה"א כ"ט י"ד), אך שמעלים אורו הגדול ומגלה רשימו בלבד שהוא ענין דעת המצומצם עד שממנו יוכל להיות נמשך התפעלות על הנבראים

Hebrew English Edition:

וְהוּא כְּמוֹ הָאָב הַמַּדְרִיךְ בְּנוֹ קָטָן בֶּן שְׁנָתוֹ,

The analogy involves a father who desires to train his one-year-old son,

לְהוֹעִילוֹ בְּאֵיזֶה עִנְיָן

to improve him in a particular matter,

כְּמוֹ שֶׁמְּלַמְּדוֹ לֵילֵךְ אוֹ לְדַבֵּר

e.g., to teach him to walk or talk.

וּמַרְאֶה לוֹ בַּעֲשׂוֹתוֹ רְצוֹנוֹ פָּנִים שׂוֹחֲקוֹת

When the child carries out his father’s will, the father shows him a smiling countenance,

וּמְמַלֵּא מִשְׁאֲלוֹתָיו וְנוֹתֵן לוֹ אֱגוֹזִים וּכְהַאי גַּוְנָא

satisfies his desires, and gives him nuts and the like, to reinforce the son’s positive behavior.

וּבְעָבְרוֹ רְצוֹנוֹ מַרְאֶה לוֹ פָּנִים זוֹעֲפוֹת וּמוֹנֵעַ מִשְׁאֲלוֹתָיו הַלָּלוּ מִמֶּנּוּ,

Conversely, if the son violates his father’s will, the father shows him an angry countenance and withholds the things that the son desires from him.

וּבֶאֱמֶת בְּדַעַת הָאָב עַצְמוֹ גָּלוּי וְיָדוּעַ שֶׁאֵין הַבֵּן לְמִעוּט הַשְׂכָּלָתוֹ בְּעֶרֶךְ

Now, in truth, the father is aware that because of the son’s limited intellectual capacity, the son is not on a level

שֶׁיָּחוּל שֵׁם הִתְפַּעֲלוּת אֵלָיו

that the father would be emotionally aroused to such an extent by the son’s actions.

Nothing his son does is really significant enough for him to be aroused. Of course, the father loves his son and cares about him, but the son’s acts in and of themselves are not important to the father. Certainly, those acts mean a lot to the father but not because of the acts themselves, but because it is his son who performed them. For example, when his son takes his first steps, those steps do not benefit the father.

אֶלָּא שֶׁזֶּה מַרְאֶה לוֹ כֵּן

Nevertheless, the reason he shows him these responses

רַק כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּתְחַזֵּק הַבֵּן בָּעִנְיָן הַנִּזְכָּר לְעֵיל

is only so that the son will be reinforced to adopt these behaviors, as explained above.

When the son sees his father’s reaction and encouragement, the son will be motivated to continue this course of conduct.

וּמַרְאֶה לוֹ אֵיךְ שֶׁרָאוּי לְהִתְפָּעֵל מִמֶּנּוּ עַל פִּי שֵׂכֶל הַמְצֻמְצָם כָּמֹהוּ וְשֶׁמִּתְפָּעֵל בְּזֶה,

The father shows emotions to the child in the manner that is appropriate to respond to the child’s conduct and acts as if he is affected by his conduct in a manner befitting the child’s limited understanding.

The actions the child performs are not, in and of themselves, on a level sufficient to arouse such an emotional response on the part of the father. Nevertheless, out of his love for his child, the father goes beyond his ordinary pattern and involves himself with his child on his child’s level in order to train him.

וְעַל דֶּרֶךְ זֶה יוּבַן לְמַעְלָה

The analogue to the above can be understood in the spiritual realms.

שֶׁבֶּאֱמֶת בְּעַצְמוּתוֹ יִתְבָּרֵךְ אֵין הַנִּבְרָאִים תּוֹפְסִים מָקוֹם כְּלָל

In truth, in relation to G‑d’s Essence, the created beings are not significant

שֶׁיָּחוּל עֲלֵיהֶם שֵׁם הִתְפַּעֲלוּת

and are not worthy of generating an emotive arousal,

דִּכְלָא וּכְאַיִן וְאֶפֶס מַמָּשׁ חֲשִׁיבִין

for all existence is actually considered as nothingness and void before Him.

וְאֵיךְ יִהְיֶה הִתְפַּעֲלוּת עַל דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ

How is it possible that something that does not exist generate emotive arousal?

וּכְאָמְרָם אֵין לְךָ דָבָר שֶׁחוּץ מִמֶּנּוּ

And it is said: There is no existence aside from Him,

כִּי מִמְּךָ הַכֹּל (דִּבְרֵי הַיָּמִים א' כ"ט י"ד),

as it is written (I Divrei HaYamim 29:14): “Everything is from You.”

אַךְ שֶׁמַּעֲלִים אוֹרוֹ הַגָּדוֹל

Nevertheless, He hides His great light

וּמְגַלֶּה רְשִׁימוּ בִּלְבָד

and reveals only a trace of it

שֶׁהוּא עִנְיַן דַּעַת הַמְצֻמְצָם

which brings into being a framework of limited knowledge

עַד שֶׁמִּמֶּנּוּ יוּכַל לִהְיוֹת נִמְשָׁךְ הִתְפַּעֲלוּת עַל הַנִּבְרָאִים,

from which an emotive arousal can be drawn down in response to the created beings.

The Tzemach Tzedek has thus resolved the first aspect of the question raised above. For in truth, the actions of the created beings are not, in and of themselves, significant enough to generate emotive arousal on G‑d’s part. That is possible only because G‑d chose, as it were, to enable them to generate such an arousal.

  • You seem to be saying that the only way God "needs" us is in the sense deriving satisfaction from us following His commandments. This is far below the "need" claims made by the rabbis I quoted. I would be happy if someone could address these quotes directly. Commented Oct 6, 2019 at 1:57
  • There are many places where these sources and this theme is discussed. However, I have never seen anywhere that concludes that G-d "needs" us in the simplistic sense. This notion is rooted in the assumption that we are separate than G-d, and that He can change. Neither of these ideas are true in an ultimate sense. However, within creation, He creates a reality where this is true. G-d creates an Avatar from Himself as the Creator (midos of Atzilus) and at that level He is effected by our deeds and "needs" us for his desire and revelation to be complete. Yet, this Avatar is created, per analogy. Commented Oct 6, 2019 at 16:19
  • @BenyominWalters The mitzvot are nogeah b'atzmus, which is another way of saying, in english, that Hashem needs us on the highest and deepest intimate level, not just on the low "creation" level of mimaleh (which is what I assume you mean by Avatar = the Shechina?). Just saying. I am planning on writing a pamphlet on this issue and bringing sources, included the most contemporary chassidic sources. Another important point brought by the Lubavitcher is that a free choice by a non-created being is more essential than an inescapable need by a created being, so the Tzemach Tzedek isn't disagreeing
    – Rabbi Kaii
    Commented Nov 11, 2022 at 14:19
  • @RabbiKaii I'd be very interested to see what you put together. Certainly our Avodah "matters" to Atzmus, but to my ear "needs" implies a lack of shleimus. I know a popular speaker has been preaching using this term, but I haven't seen justification for it in my learning. I've only seen sources like the Tzemach Tzedek quoted above. Commented Nov 17, 2022 at 1:03
  • E.g. youtu.be/Ovit27cm5T4 it's not just said popular speaker, it's a debate that goes back at least to the Ramban. It's a concept that is quite alien from the modern culture we are born to, so it's not unexpected that it's going to sound wrong.
    – Rabbi Kaii
    Commented Nov 17, 2022 at 1:21

A bachur who had just arrived in yeshiva for his first day was speaking to the mashgiach to get settled, and during that conversation he asked the mashgiach “Is there a phone I can use? I need to call my mother.” The mashgiach looked at him incredulously and repeated back to him in a sarcastic tone “I need to call my mother?” The boy understood the message and corrected, “Is there a phone I can use? My mother needs me to call her.”

The Alter Rebbe responded: “You are speaking about what you need. But you have not given a thought to what you are needed for.” (To Know and To Care Vol. II)

Does Hashem need us. The Lubavitcher Rebbe cautioned us in a letter that if you are going to use the word "need", you must explain what it means. I have found this is a confusing and sometimes misunderstood topic, so I hope to try to provide a comprehensive, clarifying, well sourced answer (that 30,000 characters allows, it’s never enough!) and provide lots of further reading to useful english-language resources for people of all levels of learning.

The Artscroll Schottenstein Edition Sefardic Siddur's overview has an excellent 15 page explanation on how Hashem needs our prayer (צורך גבוה), that is well worth reading.

In the original language, a vital resource is this kuntres by HaRav Avraham Bergstein, with HaRav Manis Friedman's guidance, which has all the detail, and many sources.

To cut to the chase: Yes, Hashem needs us. Not the "things about us", and not as a means to an end; it’s just Him. Because of this simple need for us, though, all of the "things about us" become equally important to Him too. It is another way of saying we and our performance of Mitzvot are essential to Him.

Now the explanation, and spoiler alert: it's not going to “explain away” need, but make it deep, romantic, and infinite. It is the very core of the question of what we and our performance of Mitzvot means to Him, afterall…

What does "need" mean?

Like Rambam in Moreh Nevuchim and the theology of negation, let’s start by asking what does it not mean? Our common usage of this word is likely to be a source of confusion and friction, when in relation to Hashem, so it's important we disregard the following types of need:

  1. It implies weakness or lack. The word need doesn't have to imply these. For example, the "need to find meaning" is not a weakness, but a strength, a perfection, in a human being. Secondly, anything that is lacking in us is not a need, it is something we don’t need. The “need to eat” is actually something we could and would do without!
  2. Acquired needs. Needs that are superadded to us, i.e. they are not our needs, but needs imposed upon us by our Creator. Even in a finite human being, that’s not a true need
  3. Needs that change with time. If it only applies when we are young but not old, it’s clearly not a real need
  4. A need that may never be fulfilled. This is a flawed need. A true, perfect need must be fulfilled

Torah talks about Hashem needing in the following ways, lowest to highest (some sources follow):

Practical need, for the Plan

Firstly, it is used in the sense of pragmatism, i.e. He needs us to do our mission in the correct way for His plans to succeed. For example, the Zohar explains that Hashem created the world to be known, and for that He needs us to know Him. The word used for this in Hebrew is generally צריך, such as in the Zohar, or the terms צורך עליון (Avodat HaKodesh), צורך מקום (Rashi), צורך גבוה (countless, back to gemara).

Necessary, the opposite of frivolous

It is also used to mean that His plan is not frivolous, or arbitrary, but necessary to Him. What He wants is essential to Him, which makes it a need. This plan He has to be known is authentic. This concept in Hebrew is generally referred to as עצמי.

Essential need, not secondary, with no external influence at all

Need has a higher meaning in terms of Him Himself (Essence), i.e., in the realm of someones as opposed to the realm of somethings, and here it carries the romantic and intimate connotation. Up until now, we are explaining what it means in terms of Hashem’s revelations, גילוים. However, the highest truth about Hashem is that He Himself is beyond all revelation. The Tanach and Chazal prefer the terms תשוקה or תאווה when discussing this essential need, to highlight that it is a need that is beyond reason, but we also use the word need in English this way too (Rashi, we will show later, connects these words to צורך in Lashon Hakodesh also): “My mother needs me to call her”. The mother’s need is superrational, it is bound up with her identity; herself.

The main point: this type of desirous need is loftier and infinitely more essential than a need that comes from lack: it is nogeah to me, myself! In fact, this type of need comes from within, rather than as a response, and is therefore a primary need.

Lastly, to demonstrate that it is not a deficiency or imperfection, consider the husband who thinks of his wife, “if she were to disappear tomorrow, it wouldn’t matter to me, I don’t need her”. Does he sound perfect? Clearly not. Consider this deeply.

Hashem is One, Ein Od Milvado

In chassidic teachings of Essence, Oneness is intimately connected with the notion of need outlined here. קודשא בריך הוא, אורייתא, וישראל. וכל חד – Hashem, Torah and Yisrael are all One (Zohar III 73a). This is a real need like a husband needs his wife, the someone that is the other half of his soul, and the object of his choice and desire: we need to be together, we belong together, we desire each other, we think and feel only for each other, we are inseparable, indivisible. We need each other; we are one. This is what the Torah says, right?

This same Oneness unifies all the levels of need we just discussed, as His plan is to become One with us, and this is essential to Him, and it is beyond reason and not a means to an end; it’s coming from Him Himself, to us, ourselves through His Torah (and that is very romantic indeed). As Rambam states

...for the sake of Himself, or His will which is identical with His self… “Everything that is called by My name: I have created it for My glory, I have formed it; yea, I have made it” (Isa. 43:7); that is to say, everything that is described as My work has been made by Me for the sake of My will and for no other purpose (Moreh Nevuchim 3:13)

What about using the word "want" instead?

The word “want” is also true. His Will is the Body of Torah (see Zohar III:152a) along with His Wisdom, and complements His need, which is the Soul of Torah. In other words, He is One with the Torah and Mitzvot, they are indispensable, will never change, can’t fail, and are not a means to an end, a.k.a Emet. At the highest rung, Hashem needs us and wants us; they are the same. When they are separated, they are no longer Godly. Needing that which one doesn’t want is not Godly, it is immature. Wanting something we don’t need is… a yeitzer hara. The word “want” adds the implication of choice: Hashem isn’t just Himself arbitrarily, but freely and truly.

So, even though Hashem is also choosing to need, that doesn’t mean it was optional to Him, and this is understood better from the theology of Divine Free Will (and discussion of רצון ובעל הרצון etc.) When we understand how authentic and true Hashem is, whatever He chooses is essentially Him, not optional; He doesn't change. Therefore saying “He chose to need” is only coming to strengthen the concept of Him needing it - teaching us that He has infinite, unfathomable Self Definition (see Shalah 1:8) – this does not weaken or add optionality to the argument, ch’v. He wants us to be this way as well, in our own finite way, and choose to be who we are, freely, becoming the masters of our own ship, real mentschen. This frees us to be available for others, but that is another topic.

Where in the Torah does it say He needs us?

There are countless examples of the Torah telling us explicitly and implicitly that Hashem needs us, and needs us to fulfil the Mitzvot, and the OP has brought some very important ones. Here are just 10 more to keep things brief

  1. The Tanach does not use the word צורך, however when it comes to the plan, the Torah is replete with stress on the non-negotiable, essential seriousness of keeping Torah and Mitzvot. The higher, essential need (see above), however, is discussed in Tanach. The most explicit Pasuk is Shir Hashirim 7:11; אֲנִי לְדוֹדִי וְעָלַי תְּשׁוּקָתוֹ. This is in the Holy of Holies work, Shir Hashirim, our allegory for the highest mashal of Oneness with Hashem: the spousal Oneness, and the word for need is the one used only for husband (see Yoma 75a) and wife (Bereshit 3:16): תשוקה. These were the last words on Rashbi’s lips when he died (Malbim)
  2. וְשָׁכַנְתִּי בְּתוֹכָם, I will dwell among/within them (Shemot 25:8) is a Pasuk that Chazal comment on as a source of our idea. Dira Betachtonim, the purpose of creation and Hashem’s תאווה according to Midrash, is directly connected. The Alshich explains that Hashem is not interested in a Dira, but the Tachtonim, i.e. us; needs us. Ramban (and others) brings up צורך גבוה on his commentary to this Pasuk, igniting an 800 year discussion on this very topic, which is even codified into the comprehensive halachic work Aruch Hashulchan in OC 89:8. More on this in point 9 below.
  3. In case we weren’t sure what צורך גבוה means, Rashi explains in no uncertain terms: לא עשאה צורך ישראל אלא צורך מקום (Sotah 38b); Hashem’s need, not ours. This perhaps sheds light on what Rashi means by “for the sake of Yisrael Hashem created the world” in the second Rashi on Torah. This is based on the word תאווה in the gemara!
  4. Many pasukim show that Hashem, speaking Himself (first person – see the maamar בשעה שהקדימו, יום ב׳ דחג השבועות תשי״ב), tells us that it is for Him, not us; "Be Holy for Me", "My Mitzvot" in the daily Shema, for example. Also in Nach, pasukim such as כֹּל פָּעַל ה לַמַּעֲנֵהוּ (Mishlei 16:4), which the Rambam quotes in Moreh Nevuchim 3:13 as demonstrating this point. It is for His will and Self (not ours), and is thus essential to Him. "For His Sake", "Lishma", "Leshem Yichud" etc
  5. It is related to the concept that Hashem, so to speak, keeps the Mitzvot (Shemot Rabbah 30:9), which tells us that the Mitzvot are not external or superficial to Him, but personal. Indeed, the Kabbalists and Chassidim teach us they are נוגע בעצמות.
  6. Rashi on Vayikra 25:43: The word Avodah implies that the Adon has a need that must be fulfilled by the eved (us, see 42). See also Chovot Halevavot 3, and, as per the previous point, note that this is codified in halacha in Rambam Hilchot Avadim 1:6 etc
  7. The logic of the Rambam, Ramchal et al. As we will show, it is a perfection, so we can say in negated terms "however much a human can have that perfection, God has it at least as much". The philosophy of this is discussed in Jewish Philosophy, Mussar and Chassidus, and will be brought up below. For now, the Rambam says: in Moreh Nevuchim 1:55 “Hence it follows that all perfections must really exist in God, and none of them must in any way be a mere potentiality”
  8. In case we are still unclear, the Zohar Bereshit 16 (I 23a) says in no uncertain terms, a point that was "kept secret even from the prophets and the sages": דודאי לא ברא קודשא בריך הוא מלתא דלאו איהו צריך, Hashem definitely didn’t create anyone or anything He doesn’t need!
  9. The Lubavitcher Rebbe, concludes the “800 year discussion” on צורך גבוה - which Rabbi Shimon Jacobson explains has gradually raised the need higher up towards Hashem's Essence throughout this time - by saying it very explicitly: Our fulfilment of the Torah and Mitzvot is relevant to Hashem Himself, Essentially. Not only is it an “absolute need” (verbatim) in terms of the revealed creation, but reaches all the way up to Him. See בשעה שהקדימו תשי״ב, and לא תהי׳ משכלה תשי״ב
  10. The wonderous point in Moreh Nevuchim, that Hashem and His Will are identical, is the very same point of essential need as above, expressed philosophically

How can He need us?

Thus far, we have dealt with 2 of the most common disputes about the notion that Hashem needs us. We have shown that a true need is a perfection, not a lack. We have also disputed, quite conclusively, any claim that the Torah does not speak of Hashem's need in this way.

Now we come to the important philosophical objections, namely that Hashem’s Essence is unreachable, indescribable, “no thought can apprehend Him”, and therefore all language the Torah uses to describe Hashem is “lashon benei adam”, a mashal aimed at the ear of a finite human being, and the mashal of need is no different.

I would break this problem down into 4 parts which often get muddled:

Who Is Hashem?

The Baal Shem Tov told us that the simple Jew knows Hashem best. Why? Because for the simple Jew, there’s no need for complexity; it’s just Him!

There is a very abstract philosophical concept regarding "essence" and "expression/revelation". Due to the subtle nature, it will be diluted here, but here is a quick overview:

What is “essence”, and what is “revealed”? These correspond to what we've been discussing, namely "myself" vs. "the things about me", respectively. Essence is “the subject in and of themselves”. What it is, as it is; who I am, me. Philosophically, this is something that is not revealable or sharable. I.e. one can’t give you a piece of themselves; myself is indivisible, it can’t be chopped up into pieces. Everything has an essence, even essences can have essences:

The essence of the soul, Kabbalah teaches us, is intellect and heart – I am what I know and my character. The essence of these is will. The essence of the will of our Neshama is the Chaya, and then the Yechida and so on.

One can ask, who am I? Am I my character and knowledge? Yes. However, they are mine, and therefore on a deeper level, they aren’t the real me, but more "the things about me": my expressions. Want is higher still, but even that can be viewed as not the "real me", but it's much closer, as what I want can be a very fundamental "expression" of who I am...

So, if my body and soul are not me, then what is? We realise that anything which can be reduced to a description or property, cannot be something essential. I am me, saying any more is talking about the things “about me”, not me. This is also true, l’havdil, with regards to Hashem.

Hashem “as He relates to creation”, many commentators point out, is not His true Essence, but His expression.

We have a term in Kabbalah – “His existence from His Essence” – to describe the Ohr Ein Sof (which is also beyond comprehension - see Chagiga 18b), implying that He is above even this Infinite Light (עִלַּת עַל כָּל עִלּוֹת, Zohar).

Hashem Himself. The Shalah informs us that, He Himself is absolutely beyond all description whatsoever, and a key point is that it is not just due to our lack of comprehension, but fundamentally nothing limits Hashem Himself in any way whatsoever. Anything is possible. The Lubavitcher Rebbe in לא תהי׳ משכלה תשי״ב explains that we are now just talking about Him, the One Who narrates the Torah, whom the simple Jew knows; דוֹדִי וְעָלַי תְּשׁוּקָתוֹ.

The philosophy of Hashem’s Essence is described in great detail in Moreh Nevuchim, and dealt with at length in Derech Mitzvotecha.

How do we reconcile the teachings that "He is incomprehensible, doesn’t have any parts or attributes, and is unlike anything in creation at all"?

Very importantly, we must put this into context. Pardes Rimonim, Tanya, Derech Mitzvotecha, all give us that context: if we find this concept of Hashem Himself and His relationship with His "the things about Him" hard to understand, we should look to ourselves, because man’s inability to know Hashem finds its parallel (so to speak) in his inability to know his own self. We can’t talk about our true self, which is simple, one, indivisible, indescribable... familiar? These are philosophical statements about essence.

The lesson our Chachamim are stressing is that we must learn to think essentially, not superficially, and doing so raises us and is a moral imperative: we should view ourselves and each other as above our superficialities; as someones. We raise our awareness and gain mastery of this through Torah study and keeping Mitzvot, elevating our conception of need, will, wisdom, love, to more Godly understandings along the way. The more we are able to raise our awareness on this point, the more demystified this theology of Hashem becomes, and the more we can understand the differences and connections between "essence" and "expression".

For example, we have already discussed need on the level of "expression": we’ve mentioned the need to have a plan fulfilled. Deeper is the meaning of need that something is essential to us. When it comes to "essence", it means something deeper and ineffable: “I need to be me” or “I can’t not be me”. Or “I can’t be without you, I need you”.

There is also a mysterious unity between expressions and essence, which we must take on faith (see Tanya Shaar HaYichud VeHaEmuna Ch. 9, "רָזָא דִמְהֵימְנוּתָא"). More on this when we discuss Hashem’s authenticity, below.

Of course, there are still differences between Him and us, and this must be studied too. Hopefully though, many will be surprised and glad to know that we don’t have to remain ignorant of Hashem, but can get much true knowledge of Him, as well as ourselves, our souls, and the connection between His Essence and ours. We achieve this from studying His Torah and performing Mitzvot, which is His loving Self-revelation to us (see Shabbat 105a). Along the way, with the guidance of our Chachamim, we will learn the differences too, and avoid the dangerous pitfalls into heresy, and other serious mistakes (beware; it is a very delicate subject, with a lot of history, and must be approached with a lot of awe, humility and sensitivity); having incorrect knowledge about Hashem is extremely serious, see Moreh Nevuchim 1:54. Both studies, each endless and deep, complement each other like awe and love.

What do we do about all the warnings and forbidding that our Gedolim made about this topic?

Each should be taken by itself, and weighed against the many statements of the Gedolim who taught the opposite, that it is vital to learn the parts of the secrets of the Torah that have been explained. By 5783, more has been explained than ever before. These explanations from our Gedolim have taken into account, and helped us with the warnings and dangers, such as the worries of heretical ideas like seeing Hashem as corporeal, or having eternal partners, or other serious mistakes like this, ch'v.

This is weighed by the needs of the time. The Nefesh HaChaim’s teachers would never have taught these secrets to the public, but he, when worrying that people were studying it anyway and getting it wrong, felt the need to teach it (see 3:1-3). However, he also only did the absolute minimum to avoid people erring, such as “making a beracha in the bathroom” (because they learned that Hashem is everywhere). Now, we have way worse problems than that, and deeper explanations have been made by our Chachamim. Chabad Chassidus has made explaining this its main topic, with 7 generations of wisdom, and much of it being translated into many languages.

These dangers are at least in part why the Lubavitcher Rebbe stated that if we are going to use the valid word "need", we must explain what it means. Meaning that by now, the Chachamim have been able to bring this down into good enough vessels of explanation, that it is possible to explain more of this secret to the public, with care and caution.

תּוֹרָה הִיא, וְלִלְמוֹד אֲנִי צָרִיךְ

What is the connection between Him Himself and the גילוים, the revealed matters that we can comprehend. Is it authentic, or completely “pretend”, or something in between?

Note this well, as it is addressing one of the main concerns at the heart of this discussion, for many.

The teachings that there is a difference between the way Hashem relates to creation and Him Himself, as well as the parallel differences between us and Him, can lead to phrases in our learning that make us question whether Hashem is being authentic in the way He relates to us, especially when the stress is on the difference. Whatever the lesson, Hashem is being authentic and sincere; He is One, He is True.

But how can this be? How can the Infinitely Removed be Infinitely Immanent? The Rebbe Rashab (who taught us that Mitzvot are נוגע בעצמות) gives clear insight into the matter of authenticity in Maamar Veyadata, which elucidates how, miraculously, everything in creation is what’s called a “perfect mashal” i.e. everything about the Nimshal is expressed in the mashal. The Rambam as well, in Moreh Nevuchim, when explaining that everything is a mashal, tells us how the mashal informs the Nimshal (through negation etc). Shaarei Orah Hakdama 6 and Shalah 13b are good Kabbalistic references on this point as well.

So, when the Rambam says “know for sure that Hashem doesn’t have an attribute of love” he doesn't mean He doesn’t love us, ch'v. He means that, if you like the idea of Him loving you, and needing you, then when you find out the truth of this, which is beyond words and beyond your comprehension right now, you will find it is even better than what you thought!

An helpful mashal I’ve heard Rabbi Friedman use:

When a sophisticated father gets down on the floor, simplifies, and plays with his child, he is not acting or being inauthentic. The opposite: this is more the real essential him, than the sophistication! His love and unity with his child is essential to him. The child may not know the father “in and of himself”, but the child knows what is essential to the father and thus knows about the father himself*.

Please note that this connection between "expression", "essence" and His Essence is very recondite and there are many areas to learn. Even the phrase “His expressions are authentic” does not do justice to the depth of that authenticity, with what we’ve been able to explain here! Keep this in mind.

Regardless of how deeply we understand Him needing us, knowing that it is authentic on every level is vital. All this means that we aren't reducing anything by saying they "are 'just' how Hashem relates to creation" etc. (in fact, with what we’ve learned, we can see that such statements are meant to impress upon us how much more magnified the truth of these matters really is, such as Hashem’s need for us!) The "things about Him" are authentically Him, (mysteriously, but truly) connected to Him, and there should be no barriers in being in a real and soulful relationship with Him!

Common points of confusion

Hashem never changes

This is a philosophical point. Nothing can affect Hashem because He is the only one who can bring about any affect whatsoever. We don't have any power, it is all from Him, so indeed it is a true statement: we have not got the power to affect. This is very inspiring, as Hashem's bond to us is personal to Him, owned by Him. A mashal is a husband telling his wife that he has come to totally own his love for her. It is an essential and free love, uninfluenced: he loves her with his very self (indeed, it is way more than love). She herself is now intrinsically important to him, and nothing can damage that bond with her. This is what Chazal were alluding to in Avot 5:16, a love not based on a thing. This doesn’t mean it is based on nothing, but no thing; it is based on each other. Think about this well.

This more philosophical point of Hashem Himself not changing doesn't limit Him (nothing limits Him). Pardes Rimonim 6:4 shows an advanced analogy with the essence of our soul: our life force vitality is also, l'havdil, undifferentiated and unchanging. The only thing that changes is the vessel that it is expressed in, whether it be in the foot, walking, or in the brain, knowing. This is a good mashal towards how, in Hashem's infinite Oneness, His actions and expressions are not in any way changes, even though we are clearly in a very dynamic relationship with Him.

We also mentioned that a true need never changes. This comes out from this idea of Hashem never changing too.

Rambam says explicitly that Hashem doesn’t need anything, and anyone who says so is a heretic

That’s right. We haven’t fully covered this here, but the truth is that Hashem simply needs us, not the "things about us", not as a means to an end, and the truth of this is not only beautifully romantic, but also very recondite. As we have enjoyed explaining, we are not "the things about us": we are just our essential selves, not things! We’ve also explained the difference between needs that are lacks, and how this is a true need, which is a perfection and not a lack. It is the need for us, Self to self, we are His and He is ours, and nothing will ever change that (see Gittin 57b). We must attach ourselves to Him (see Derech Hashem 1) by emulating Him, through Torah and Mitzvot.

At one of my sheva berachot, I was describing something or other to the host, and I said "that's my favourite thing", and he incredulously asked "what about your kalla?", and somehow I found the answer and said "my wife is not a thing!" and everyone laughed, because it's obvious, right?

The Rambam says that we cannot know why Hashem created the world, and it is heretical to say otherwise

Nothing here should contradict this. We have explained the words of our Chachamim, but the reality of the need, from His point of view (so to speak), and the "why", are beyond us. See also the discussion surrounding Megilla 25a, that the Mitzvot are “decrees of the King” and therefore important to Him in a way that is beyond reason, even though they are also good for us.

We only have the mashal, and the sources in Torah. We are making the point that this need is beyond reason. We have tried not to add to what the Chachamim have explained, yet haven't even covered everything. Please review the provided sources!

There are statements in Chazal that the Mitzvot are only given to refine human beings

The Lubavitcher Rebbe deals with this at length in לא תהי׳ משכלה תשי״ב. It is true, He doesn’t need the light of the Menora, that is there to refine us. However, who needs us to be refined? Not us, but Him.

When teaching we are relevant to Hashem Himself, the Gedolim say He is not bound by that, does that mean it is not a "need"?

This point means that the need is coming from Himself, not externally, like we have described in the point above about Hashem not changing. See this comment, and this shiur, for another mashal.

The Torah itself says “if you are a tzaddik, what do you give Him?”

Again, this is a philosophical point. Hashem doesn’t need us to be tzaddikim - what are we trying to impress Him? - He just needs us to perform the Mitzvot, whether we are a tzaddik or not, because His bond with us is essential. Saying the Mitzvot are for us is like saying "our mother giving us directions to find our way home" is for us. It will help us get home, to our mother, who needs us there.

Tl;dr. "Need" is appropriate to describe Hashem's essential bond with us and how essential it is to Him for us to perform Mitzvot, study Torah, find Him, and become One with Him. This type of need is actually a perfection, not a lack. There are many lengthy sources that have worked to explain this idea, treating it carefully, and showing how it is a unifying idea that helps resolve theological machlokeses. It is a point that fits well with all of Torah when understood properly, and explains many mysteries such as what Avodah means, and "for His sake". It is an important idea to allow us, and take us, closer to Yediyat Hashem than we thought possible. When we say He needs us, we mean it in the strongest, most infinite and romantic manner imaginable; He needs us, not the things about us, and this allows intimacy and Oneness. This is Godly, this is Him.

Points not touched on. For research and contemplation:

  • Love without vulnerability (the consequence of need) is not real love
  • Intimacy, dvekut, yichud: the bonding and unifying of two people, self to self, essence to essence, without any superficialities between them.
  • What other difficult Torah concepts make sense in light of this idea?
  • "Belonging", "home" and "One" - connection?
  • Essence and "beyond reason" - connection?
  • How does "Mitzvot are נוגע בעצמות" relate?
  • Tzimtzum
  • Kind request: 30,000 characters have been used to give a very thorough discussion, although more space would have been useful and I imagine there will be quite a few questions. Please could I ask people with questions, especially kashes, to put in similar effort by opening a chat, demonstrating they have read the whole answer and checked the sources, and phrase their question appropriately, as well as politely, and invite a response. Thank you!
    – Rabbi Kaii
    Commented Aug 13, 2023 at 19:52
  • I'll be brief. Shabbat is about to start. Too wordy, too complicated. You get lost in superlatives and infinities applied to God. God clearly wants us to do certain things, but chose not to force us. So He must need these things. It can't be that the mitzvot are purely for our benefit, because He didn't have to create us at all. We don't know what this need is, and I didn't ask. I just wanted confirmation this is not a heretical thought. Shabbat Shalom. Commented Nov 17, 2023 at 21:28
  • I am glad you are able to see Hashem's need so simply and plainly. I am deeply jealous @MauriceMizrahi. For many, it is a huge mountain to surmount, so I made sure to try to account for people who have heard their whole life that He doesn't need it, with huge edifices of philosophy and law to back that up under threat of being branded a fool at best, a heretic at worst. Many have not been exposed to the legitimate sources I brought in the answer so, even though it wasn't of use, and was too over-the-top for you (be thankful), I hope it is of some use to others who have a different background
    – Rabbi Kaii
    Commented Jan 25 at 1:34
  • Shalom @Rabbi Kaii - just wanted to dispute one of your points here: that a need that changes with time is not a real need. My contention: a young person who sinned greatly in their youth and repented may need redemption in the eyes of the world (for turning / returning to HKBH), whilst an older baal teshuvah who has already received some kind of personal redemption in their life may not have this need to the same extent. Is the younger man’s need not real? Are not ‘narratological reasons’ valid in determining the reality of a need? No worries if you have dropped this - blessings.
    – Tom W
    Commented Apr 14 at 19:02
  • 1
    @Rabbi Kaii - yours in an outstanding answer in my opinion, BTW :)
    – Tom W
    Commented Apr 14 at 19:04

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .