Spirituality (3): Knowledge of God

 

In the previous shiur, we discussed how tzedaka u-mishpat are identified as derekh Hashem, both in Parashat Vayera and throughout Tanakh. Avraham first recognizes these values as Divine and thus their performance as a spiritual gesture that trumps even communion with God. The Prophets and Sages carry this message forward, repeatedly stressing that tzedaka u-mishpat is more desirable to God than the Temple worship.

 

In this shiur, we will relate to one final concept that frequently arises in Nevi’im regarding tzedaka u-mishpat: knowledge of God. While this concept, like “derekh Hashem,” can carry multiple different meanings, at least some uses describe the embrace and performance of tzedaka u-mishpat. Incredibly, knowledge of God is not exclusively the result of contemplation but can actually spring from a life of action. Moreover, these two modes of spirituality are complementary, together yielding a more holistic, authentic apprehension of the Divine.

 

 

 

Yirmeyahu, in particular, speaks repeatedly of knowledge of God (or its absence) in the context of ethical behavior.

 

In a blistering rebuke, Yirmeyahu recounts the degree of distrust and deceit that has taken hold in society. Twice, he laments the people’s “ignorance” of God:

 

 

 

Several verses later, Yirmeyahu returns to the knowledge of God and its connection to ethical conduct:

 

 

Finally, in his rebuke of the kings of the House of David, Yirmeyahu is most explicit:

 

 

Radak notes the connection to 9:23, as does Rabbeinu Yona. About the earlier verse, Rabbeinu Yona asks:

 

 

In other contexts, when the meaning of “knowledge of God” is less obvious, the Sages or later commentaries interpret the phrase in light of Yirmeyahu. For instance, Yeshayahu, Chapter 11, anticipates the coming of the Messiah (verse 1), who will return justice to society and usher in an era of peace (verses 3-8). There will be no violence whatsoever “in all of God’s mountain, for the earth will be filled with knowledge of God, as the waters blanket the oceans” (verse 9).

 

On this final verse, the Sages comment:

 

 

Read this way, this anticipated wondrous day in which knowledge of God will be deep and ubiquitous does not refer to the flourishing of law or theology but to pervasive justice and harmony.[4] Furthermore, the connection is not merely semantic, but thematic: the Messiah will lead humanity back to knowledge of God by restoring the mishpat u-tzdaka of his ancestors from the House of David (also see Yirmeyahu 23:5).

 

The Tosafist R. Moshe of Coucy also harnesses Yirmeyahu, in order to explain King David’s charge to his son Shlomo:

 

 

In Divrei Ha-yamim, then, King David is obliquely commanding Shlomo to follow in his own path of tzedaka u-mishpat, couching them in terms of knowing God.[5]

 

Notably, R. Moshe of Coucy also includes the traits of being compassionate (rachum) and favoring (chanun) along with tzedaka u-mishpat within knowledge of God, thus creating a certain parallel to the “way of God.” Just as the ways of God combine the values discovered by Avraham with the attributes revealed to Moshe, so too does knowledge of God encompass all of these characteristics.

 

Supporting evidence for R. Moshe may be adduced from the following rabbinic interpretation of familiar verses from Hoshea (2:21-22):

 

 

 

As with the verses from Tehillim (103:6-8) that we cited in the conclusion to the previous shiur, Hoshea blends together the Divine attributes learned from our Avot with those learned from Sinai. Through all of them together, R. Meir explains, one penetrates the thinking of God.

 

Finally, the various verses we have cited may shed light on other verses in Hoshea. Hoshea laments that “there is no truth and no chessed and no knowledge of God on earth” (4:1); Radak explains, in one interpretation, that there is no knowledge “to perform mishpat u-tzdaka,” citing Yirmeyahu 22:15-16.

 

One day, the Jewish people will say, “Let us go and return to God… and we will conclude, let us run to know God” )6:1-3); again, Radak explains “to perform mishpat u-tzdaka,” based on Yirmeyahu.

 

And when God declares a few verses later, “For I desire chessed and not sacrifice, and knowledge of God more than burnt offerings” (verse 6), Radak explains that “performance of chessed is primary, as well as knowledge of God, which is to perform mishpat u-tzdaka.”[9]

 

 

 

Importantly, the knowledge of God that Yirmeyahu and other prophets describe does not seem to be rooted in cognition, but in action. To be sure, deep reflection upon Divine attributes also affords knowledge of God; thus, in reference to Moshe’s request, “Make known to me, please, Your ways” (Shemot 33:13), Rabbeinu Bechaye cites Yirmeyahu 9:23, explaining that “knowledge of God is knowledge of His attributes.”[10] Practically, the Sages recommend diversity in study material as a path towards character refinement:

 

 

Here, too, familiarity with God develops through study, albeit of a non-legal curriculum.

 

Still, I don’t think this is what Yirmeyahu intends when he speaks of an earlier Davidic king knowing God by performing mishpat u-tzdaka and defending the underprivileged. Performance of mishpat u-tzdaka there is juxtaposed with eating and drinking; it is part of the bustling, material life of a monarch, rather than the intellectual world of a sage. For the House of David, I think, knowledge of God stems mainly from concrete action, rather than from contemplation.

 

Following our schematic from the previous shiur, we might differentiate here between the mode of berit Avot and that of berit Sinai. Perhaps knowledge of God in berit Sinai, like knowledge of the law, is primarily cognitive and formal, while in berit Avot it is more intuitive and experiential.

 

At Sinai, Moshe teaches us to seek deep understanding of God’s attributes and then mold our own character and conduct after them. But Yirmeyahu, I think, calls for the opposite: to roll up our sleeves, to get engaged, and to perform tzedaka u-mishpat; and from that involvement will naturally emerge intimate perception of God’s essence and goodness. Parallel to Avraham’s insight that he will find God more through welcoming guests than through spiritual communion, knowledge of God in Yirmeyahu comes mainly from practicing truth and kindness in the marketplace and from maintaining an open and just royal court, rather than from hours of meditation in the study hall.

 

 

 

So far, we have seen Yirmeyahu’s linkage of tzedaka u-mishpat to knowledge of God and commentaries’ interpretations of other verses in the Prophets through it. But, as with the way of God, can we trace this idea back to Avraham himself? Perhaps, if not in Torah She-bikhtav, then in Torah She-be’al Peh.

 

In yet another context, the Midrash interprets a passage through the prism of Yirmeyahu 9:23, relating to the parallel use not of the verb “to know” (y-d-a), but of the accompanying verb “to discern” (s-k-l):

 

 

 

 

 

Given the similarity in language, the Midrash compares the opening of Tehillim 89 to Yirmeyahu. According to this reading, Eitan Ha-Ezrachi has a great epiphany about God: His deepest attribute, and thus His greatest source of praise, is chessed. So Eitan praises God’s chassadim, continuing that God, whose own throne rests upon “tzedek u-mishpat” (verse 15), will establish the throne of King David forever (verses 4-5).[13]

 

But who is this mysterious Eitan Ha-Ezrachi? Based on I Melakhim 5:11 and I Divrei Ha-Yamim 2:6, Rashi and Radak identify him as an early figure from the tribe of Yehuda.[14] However, they also cite a rabbinic tradition that identifies Eitan as Avraham Avinu:

 

 

If we stitch these two rabbinic teachings together, then it is Avraham who is being identified as first discerning God! Avraham not only recognizes God as Creator and thus Master of the Universe, but also perceives His nature as one who “loves tzedaka u-mishpat” and fills the world with chessed (Tehillim 33:5).[17] Avraham passes this knowledge down to his progeny and disciples and, in Tehillim 89, anticipates a future monarchy for the Jewish people that will embody God’s “governing” principles.[18]

 

 

 

As we noted, the phrases “knowledge of God” and “way of God” in Tanakh are admittedly ambiguous, and they can alternatively refer to the Torah and its way of life, respectively.

 

For example, while the passage from Avot De-Rabbi Natan we cited earlier asserts, based on Hoshea, that one can “know God’s thinking” by embracing all of His attributes, a different passage identifies another route to “God’s thinking”:

 

 

 

Avot De-Rabbi Natan does not equate the two halves of Hoshea 6:6, as Radak does, but interprets them separately: chessed, on the one hand, and “knowledge of God” = Torah study, on the other, are two distinct endeavors that are each more spiritually rewarding than ritual sacrifice.[19] One who studies God’s revealed wisdom “knows God’s thinking,” just like one who shares His values.

 

In other words, berit Avot and berit Sinai present two different paths towards apprehending God:

 

 

The two are complementary. The berit Avot encounter with God is intense, experiential, and unfiltered, but it necessarily lacks depth. Like the jogging partner (or chessed buddy) of a great philosopher, one knows God intimately through direct engagement and active partnership but cannot necessarily articulate His doctrines. The berit Sinai encounter, by contrast, is cognitive, analytic, and comparatively cold, but at the same time sophisticated, illuminating, and intellectually enthralling. It is like reading the same philosopher’s great works or even hearing her voice, but not knowing what she looks like.

 

In our quest for God, we seek both dimensions. We don’t want to have to choose, metaphorically, between sitting in His classroom and venturing out to feed the poor by His side. They are different windows into the grand Divine essence, each view enhancing the other.[20]

 

Forced to choose though, we must recognize that the potential costs involved are not symmetric. For a Jew can live with partial knowledge of God that reveals His ways — His personality, so to speak — but not so much of His wisdom. As R. Ya’akov Tzvi Mecklenburg comments, after citing Yirmeyahu 22:15-16 and other verses:

 

 

Extensive Torah study neither is mandatory for all Jews, nor was it widely accessible for much of history. With just imitation of God’s attributes, one’s apprehension of the Divine may not be as refined or detailed as it could be, but the general outline is at least accurate.

 

The opposite, though, is not true. Knowing God through His Torah but not through tzedaka u-mishpat is not merely imperfect; it is a distortion:

 

 

About whom is Rav Huna speaking? We might imagine that he is addressing someone who studies but does not observe Jewish law.[21] However, the Gemara applies his statement to the righteous R. Chanina ben Teradyon, who criticizes himself that he only engaged in Torah study but not in chessed. The Gemara continues that R. Chanina ben Teradyon ran a charity fund and gave tzedaka himself; still, though “he indeed did do [chessed], he did not do as much as he should have.” Apparently, even a relative imbalance between Torah and chessed warps one’s perception so much that it leaves one “without a true God”!

 

Even more chilling is Yirmeyahu’s rebuke:

 

 

At the very least, Yirmeyahu is telling us that it is possible to be an accomplished scholar of Torah and yet not know God! Moreover, if we interpret this verse in light of Yirmeyahu’s other statements about “knowledge of God,” we might conclude that the scholars of his time were erudite but morally lacking. They might have known the entire Jewish library by heart but still not have known the first thing about the God of Avraham.

 

 

 

Sadly, one can be knowledgeable and unvirtuous, a phenomenon that played a role in bringing down both of our Temples. Yirmeyahu’s rebuke of his generation’s scholars is echoed by R. Yochanan ben Torta’s familiar comment about the last days of the Second Temple:

 

 

Moreover, as Yirmeyahu hints, one can be knowledgeable and wholly ignorant at the same time. For Chazal, the epitome of this absurdity is Do’eg Ha-Adomi, who, according to tradition, is a leading Torah scholar (see Sanhedrin 106b and Midrash Tehillim 3:4) but betrays David to King Shaul and slaughters the priests of Nov (I Shmuel 22:9-19). So bitter is David about Do’eg’s conduct that he devotes an entire psalm (52) to the subject. The Midrash links David’s rhetorical question towards Do’eg – “Why do you, the mighty one (ha-gibbor), seek praise (tithalel) through evil?” (verse 2) — to verses from Yirmeyahu:

 

 

 

 

In light of the verses from Yirmeyahu, the Midrash then contrasts Do’eg with David himself:

 

 

The Midrash pits Do’eg opposite David. Both are recognized by Chazal as Torah scholars, even intellectual rivals (see Zevachim 54b). Do’eg, however, is cruel and thus knows nothing of God. David, on the other hand, through “mishpat u-tzdaka,” is indeed “maskil,” exactly as Yirmeyahu exhorts. Do’eg is erased from history, while David rises to the throne and, like Avraham,[23] passes on his profound “haskala” to his descendants: King Chizkiyahu, whom Yeshayahu says will perform mishpat u-tzdaka (9:6), is also “yaskil” (II Melakhim 18:7); and the Messiah, who will fill the earth with knowledge of God, will “hiskil and perform mishpat u-tzdaka in the land” (Yirmeyahu 23:5).[24]

 

 

 

Ethical behavior without Torah is like a foundation without upper floors, but Torah without ethical behavior is like a palace without any foundation.[25] Thus, the Rambam writes, “the true religion is upheld only through tzedaka” (Hilkhot Mattenot Aniyim 10:1).[26]

 

Furthermore, perhaps this is what Mishlei intends when, in the voice of wisdom (chokhma)/ Torah, it says:

 

 

On one level, Torah can only thrive when it is situated in the midst of tzedaka u-mishpat and on the shoulders of the Avot and their covenant. But more than that, perhaps Torah is declaring that this is where she is most comfortable: her true radiance will only shine when her elaborate, towering structures are encircled by winding paths; when her rigid laws are infused with a deep spirit; and when her program for halakhic living is coupled with a transcendent vision for ethics and godliness.

 

Indeed, how affirming and utterly enchanting is the fusion of Torah and moral excellence, of knowledge-in-wisdom and knowledge-in-action, to those who are privy to behold it. They can but say: “Praiseworthy is the nation for whom it is such; praiseworthy is the nation for whom Hashem is its God” (Tehillim 144:15).[28]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Still, the passage continues, Bilam’s extraordinary knowledge does not translate into virtue:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Please email me directly with your feedback at [email protected]!