It is because of that the Eternal did for me. Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra said that the purport of the verse is: "Because of that which I do and worship Him by eating the Passover-offering and the unleavened bread, the Eternal did for me wonders until He brought me forth out of Egypt." But it is not correct. I will yet explain this verse [in commenting upon verse sixteen] … And now I shall declare to you a general principle in the reason of many commandments. Beginning with the days of Enosh when idol-worship came into existence, opinions in the matter of faith fell into error. Some people denied the root of faith by saying that the world is eternal; they denied the Eternal, and said: It is not He [Who called forth the world into existence, Jeremiah 5:12]. Others denied His knowledge of individual matters, and they say, How doth G-d know? And is there knowledge in the Most High [Psalms 73:11]? Some admit His knowledge but deny the principle of providence and make men as the fishes of the sea [Habakuk 1:14], [believing] that G-d does not watch over them and that there is no punishment or reward for their deeds, for they say the Eternal hath forsaken the land [Ezekiel 8:12]. (Chavel, 1973, 165-166, 171-172)

The two approaches apparently reflect two sides of the same coin. Ibn Ezra's approach argues that G-d's kindness expressed by the awakening of the upper realm is the result of, the reaction to, the awakening of the lower realm . Mans' initiative in observing the Torah and its commandments triggers a Divine response.

Nahmanides' approach requires further clarification. Nahmanides enumerates a series of obstacles preventing belief. The first obstacle is that of those who absolutely fail to believe in the existence of a divine reality. The world is eternal. Created in and of itself. The scientific angle. The second obstacle pertains to those who have difficulty believing that there is a connection between the Creator and the world, as if Hashem [after creating it] had left the world. They admit that the Creator exists but they believe that there are two realms. The supernal realm does not involve itself in the goings on of the existential realm. The third group "admit His knowledge but den[ies] the principle of providence and … [denies] punishment or reward for their deeds, for they say the Eternal hath forsaken the Land ."

Nahmanides commentary leaves the distinction between the second and third groups unclear. For how can we distinguish between G-d's knowledge of mans' actions, and divine providence and reward and punishment? What actual critical importance does the second group, which admits G-d's knowledge, and, hence, the link between the supernal realm and the earthly realm, but not a mutually reciprocal relationship between them possess? It is as if these latter groups have difficulty defining the oppositional relationship between divine providence and free will, and, therefore, claim that if free will exists, divine providence can not. This approach is difficult to take seriously for if we accept the axiomatic notion of a mutually reciprocal relationship then how can we fail to accept the notion that G-d responds to human actions through reward and punishment. Therefore, Nahmanides seems to be delineating the distinction between the gentile, who is subservient to the laws of nature, and the Jew, who inhabits a new reality , one above and beyond mundane reality governed by the laws of nature.

The reality experienced by the observer of the Torah and its commandments belongs exclusively to the Jew (for a gentile who keeps the Shabbat is condemned to death; it is forbidden to teach Torah to the gentile). The Jew resides in the World of Creativity wherein, and only wherein, there exists a mutually reciprocal relationship, the covenant between the divine worshipper and the monarch of the world. Only within this world do free will and divine providence meet. The reality in which Torah and its commandments are observed is a creative one initiated by the worshipper of Hashem. In this reality the rules are determined by the particular quality of the individual divine worshipper.

Reward and punishment are implemented differently for the gentile and for the worshipper of Hashem. For the gentile, reward and punishment are meted out as the objective response to his actions (accidental wrongdoing is not considered a mitigating circumstance). For the Jew, reward and punishment are implemented in a relative fashion. During the exodus from Egypt the destroyer did not smite those dwelling in houses where the lintel and the two doorposts had been smeared with the paschal sacrifice's blood.

Nahmanides opposes the position taken by Ibn Ezra wherein the Jew by keeping the Torah and its commandments triggers the Creator's subsequent performance of miracles and wonders. Nahmanides emphasizes the other side of the coin: gratitude for services rendered (hakarat ha-tov, literally, the recognition of good done to one) fuels the divine worshipper's initiative adopting the form of an awakening from the lower realm. Divine worship, based upon the principal of gratitude for services rendered, is far more crucial in Nahmanides' estimation because it requires the involvement not only of the intellect but also of the personal touch, intimate involvement enabling complete identification with the Creator of the world. Gratitude supercedes that intellectual recognition which powers the objective intellect - that true recognition untainted by the personal involvement of gratitude. True objective recognition, on the one hand, and personal involvement and identification, on the other, are the hallmarks of the new Jewish reality, exclusively set aside for those who worship Hashem. Nahmanides understands the commandments of taking the paschal sacrifice and eating the matzah to be expressions of gratitude, entailing complete involvement, not just an intellectual realization, in keeping with the verse, "Know on this day, and consider it in your heart"(Deut 4:39).

Recognition achieved by worshipping Hashem and studying the Torah are sufficient in the eyes of Ibn Ezra, and, indeed, this understanding parallels the Lithuanian one which champions the study of Torah and the performance of its commandments. Nahmanides, however, finds this approach to be insufficient for it lacks the emotion that manifests itself as a reaction infused by Being and not just by Doing. Gratitude is an emotion which manifests itself through the wholly personal reaction of longing - the Self cleaving, undergoing a process of uniting with its Creator. Nahmanides obviously grants paramount importance to devoting oneself to the Torah and its precepts; however, he believes that mans' work is not complete until he completely devotes his very own self to his Creator by expressing feelings of gratitude.

Those who identify with Ibn Ezra's approach will argue that the commandment to cleave to Hashem is performed by attaching oneself to Torah scholars, for the Creator has no corporeal body to which to adhere, and, therefore, it is sufficient to cleave to Torah scholars, and the Torah and its precepts. The novelty of the other approach, the one we have attributed to Nahmanides, is the claim that on the emotional level it is possible to cleave to Hashem via the emotion of gratitude. "And he should cleave to his G-d," this is a private-individual cleavage which completes and closes the circle encompassing Hashem's worshipper and his G-d within one entity comprising a whole reality.

Were I to throw caution to the winds, I would argue that the dispute between Nahmanides and Ibn Ezra rests upon the problematic fundamental to the very workings of the World of Creativity: Is this world, created by human beings as the point of encounter with the Creator of the world, a hermetically sealed sphere or is it also a jumping off point for reaching even higher worlds? Ibn Ezra's approach argues that Hashem's worshipper can sufficiently exhaust his divine ability within the World of Creativity. Nahmanides approach argues that the World of Creativity is indeed the ideal place for man to find himself, his quality Self, and express his infinite ability in the never-ending circle in which his feet are on the fertile creative soil and his head is in the heavens.

"R. Pinhas ben Hama made the following midrashic exposition: Anyone who has a sick person in his house should go to a wise man and ask him to pray for mercy, as it is written, 'The anger of a king is as angels of death, but a wise man will atone for it'(Proverbs 16:14)." (Bava Bathra 116a) A wise man and a righteous man . A wise man is preferable to a prophet. And in Berakhot 35a, one sage contends that one should go to a wise man and learn to pray from him. This is the wise man as defined by Ibn Ezra's approach. He is the progenitor of the World of Creativity who rules over it by force of his Torah knowledge. The wise man determines the divine laws in the real World of Creativity, for he forms it through the Torah he studies and the commandments he performs. Therefore he is called, the prince of the Torah. Ruling over the Torah world and influencing the Torah law which compels reality. A sick person, who has a sore head, should immerse himself in Torah study, and a man who realizes that he is constantly visited by suffering, should scrutinize his actions.

A wise man has the ability to comprehend a situation, analyze reality, search for its causes and grasp its roots. The wise man passes on this objective understanding to the invalid (the person sick in his home) for "the prisoner cannot release himself from prison" (the self-preservation mode). However through the study of Torah the righteous man becomes the foundation of the world, not only ruling over the World of Creativity but actually serving as its foundation, the reason for the world's creation, for he actualizes the divine presence and, therefore, he is both the reason for creation and its ultimate purpose. Therefore, the righteous man can influence the will of the Creator in keeping with the credo "the righteous man decrees and HaKadosh Baruch Hu brings [those decrees] to fruition." This is in keeping with Nahmanides' approach wherein man is not only the foundation of creation but also its ultimate purpose – cleaving to Hashem through the expression of gratitude. At the end of the day, Ibn Ezra's and Nahmanides' approaches complement one another and join in completing a spiraling circle. One represents the cause and the other represents the ultimate purpose.

Translated by Rabbi Meshulam Gotlieb
www.MGtransEd.com