The Four Elements
 |
Question:
I recently attended a class in Kabbalah and Chassidic Thought. The rabbi was talking about the "four elements"--earth, water, air and fire--as they are found in the human soul. I recognize this idea from ancient Greek and medieval philosophy, but it seems there's been some progress since then: my periodic table has 117 elements. Isn't the Torah view outdated?
Response:
I've seen two written responses on this topic from the Rebbe, one a letter written originally in English, the other, a cryptic note in Hebrew. First, the letter, Dated 18th of Tevet, 5720 (January 16, 1960):
…you ask my explanation of the reference to the four "basic elements" (yesodot) mentioned in chapter one of the Tanya, and you ask me how is it possible to reconcile this with modern chemistry which recognizes over one hundred elements.
Prefatorily, I must make at least two corrections in your letter. One, the origin of that statement in the Tanya is not as you write, but it is to be found in Midrash Rabba, Bamidbar 14,12, טבעים, and at greater length and in greater detail in many parts of the Zohar, and further explained in other books of Kabbalah. Two, modern chemistry does not recognize over one hundred basic elements, but a considerably fewer number if matter is to be reduced to its basic components or particles. For the so-called elements are themselves made up of atoms, which are the smallest particles into which an element can be divided and yet retain its properties and characteristics. But the atoms themselves are further made up of smaller particles, such as electrons, protons, neutrons, etc.
Thus, the answer to your question already lies in the proper definition of the terms under discussion. For, as indicated above, a so called element is not the most basic particle of matter. Even the tern "atom" which originally meant something indivisible, is an archaism now employed only for convenience, as it no longer corresponds to its original meaning. Similarly, when we speak of an individual as being an element of society, this does not mean that the individual himself is not a composite.
This should be borne in mind when we consider the tern Yesodot in the Zohar, Midrash Rabba, Kabbalah, etc., and, of course, in the Tanya and other Chabad sources. This does not mean something which under normal circumstances are indivisible or unchangeable, but the actual so-called "bricks" or components which make up everything that exists in the world. I might also mention that there is another school that conceives these four Yesodot, not in their physical aspects but rather qualitatively, that is to say, "fire," in the sense of the properties of hot and dryness; "water," in the sense of coolness and humidity, and so on.
In the cryptic note1, the Rebbe says much as above, but adds a fascinating idea:
"Some hypothesize that they are four basic elements: positive, negative, antimatter, matter."
| |
|
Latest Comments:
i was actually thinking about the 4 elements and i placed a google search and arrived here i read the article with ALL the comments, its very interesting.
but Rabbi Tzvi if you could please explain what your saying there in the last comment it will much appreciated. I.E. how can u think of those things mentioned as building blocks? and even whats the connection between "chochmah, binah, tifferet, malchut" ?
|
I don't understand why you have a problem with negative, positive, matter and anti-matter. This proposition makes everything clear. It also lines up with the Y-H-V-H or chochmah, binah, tifferet, malchut.
|
the above talk then makes the elements as allegorical to show than all matter is manifest from a single transcendent source - G-d.
As for the elements themselves it still seems vague about what they are supposed to be or mean other than the psychological value of personifying character traits.
As abstractions it hasnt been made clear and certainly not as manifesting the sensory world.
Each element is supposed to symbolize by one of the letters of the tetragammon Y-W-V-H - therefore have to do with the manifestation of the olamot (worlds) from ein sof to Asiah - this seems to go well with the psyche interpretation ?
|
Here is some more information I have about the Rebbe's understanding of the four elements. I heard this from R' Yoel Kahn, and it's his 80th today, so a good time to repeat it.
Imagine you walk into a watchmaker's shop. You think, "What is the watchmaker's work made of?" By observation, you determine it is made of gears, springs, clock-hands and faces, etc. Why? Because those are the parts to which you are able to reduce his watches.
Then you ask the watchmaker himself, "What is your work made of?"
"Why, watches, of course," he answers.
Similarly, to its Creator, the world is made of these four elements.
That's just about how I heard it from R' Yoel, who repeated what he had heard from the Rebbe.
|
I am not sure what the "Noach mayim" is even supposed to mean in the perceivable sensory world. What does "water destroying the form of things mean ?" Clearly we are back to abstractions not water as in H2O the earthly stuff we drink. The Noach story itself is some mystical abstract parasha that is closed from any earthly understanding - the story being far removed from anything historically recognizable.
To clarify water as H2O the earthy stuff we drink doesnt reduce things to "chaos" - dissolving substances is a structured, ordered and predictable process - and much of the time helps mediate building up forms.
But then it depends on what you mean by the words "form" "chaos" "water" and "erased"
An alternative is the Torah is borrowing metaphor and has little to do with any of our usages of these words in the sensory manifest world except in the most general sense of teaching to relate to Hashem - goes back to the psychological interpretation of the elements above.
|
See my "to tzvi" comment on particulars (or concrete manifestations) and abstractions.
The "real Mayim" abstraction meaning "liquid" would include unrelated and confusing terms eg mercury and sea water. The "real" has to be definable - not vague. In classical mathematics this works well in terms of "the real abstract five" encompasing all "fives" in the manifest world (platonism)- I guess thats what we are trying to get to in this discussion.
As for the anthropomorphisism aspect isnt that topic discussing Hashems attributes eg "G-ds hand" as "ours being a feeble reflection" - dont see how this fits the elements.
The "experiential/psychological" aspect of the 4 elements does make sense though eg a firey person being passionate and quick to lose temper, earthy being stubborn and practical "down to earth as the saying goes" - airy being intellectual and abstract but risk aloofness and too theoretical and water usually associater with emotional turbulance/dynamics.
|
As I wrote in my first comment, we're not stretching anything here. The "real" mayim is the abstraction. Water as we know it is an extension of the real water into this world.
With this, the Shelah deconstructs the common paradigm of anthropomorphism: The real eye, ear, hand, etc. are those of G-d. Ours are simply feeble reflections of those in a material world.
|
Yes, but I don't have to stretch the literal definition of water to explain the Maharal. Concrete physical water, as we know it, fits what the Maharal is saying.
|
The Rebbe doesn't specify whether he's mapping water to anti-matter. That's my mapping and it's based on an explanation of the Maharal of Prague. The Maharal asks why it is that G-d used water to destroy both the generation of Noah and Pharaoh's army. He explains that water destroys the form of each thing, reducing all things to chaos--as the text says concerning the Great Flood, "and all that stood was erased."
|
Thankyou for your comments - however it still leads to vague use of terms. there are many particulars to one abstraction - but one needs the concepts to fit properly eg mercury, water, oil and lava would according to your "liquid" definition all be called "mayim" - i find this rather strange. The same would apply for the other elements.
Also in Bereshit the first "Aretz" would have to mean "all the universe" (i.e all elements) and "Shamaim" would include all the higher transcendent olamot (melachim,neshamot etc) - but then the same word means a local piece of land elsewhere (eg "famine in the land - local area eg Israel) - very different meanings and not clear that "a local area of land" is a particular of an abstraction of "the entire physical universe/matter" (because the sea, air and fire are also particulars of the physical universe too.
Also the antimatter as water seems far fetched. And "energy" as an element for "fire" seems vague as mentioned abov
|
|
|  |
|