Rosh HaShanah: The Beginning of Change II

Abstract

This essay explores the profound connections between language, philosophy, physics, and spirituality in the context of Rosh HaShanah. By examining the linguistic roots of “shanah” (year), “shinui” (change), and “shnei” (two), the essay uncovers a rich tapestry of meaning that addresses the fundamental question: Why is there change rather than permanence? The study traces the metaphysical concept of change from ancient Greek philosophy through medieval Jewish thought to modern physics, highlighting the paradoxical relationship between the Infinite Creator and finite creation as expressed in Kabbalistic and Chassidic concepts of mati ve’lo mati and ratzo va’shov. The essay concludes by proposing a relational view of time and change, aligning Jewish mystical thought with contemporary physics, and presenting Rosh HaShanah as an opportunity for renewing and deepening our relationship with the Divine.

Introduction

In the first installment of this essay, “Rosh HaShanah – the Beginning of Change,” we focused on the meaning of the word rosh, which is cognate with reishit, meaning “beginning.” In this second installment, we shall focus on shanah, which means “time.”^[1] As previously mentioned, it is cognate with shinui, meaning “change.” As discussed earlier, change and time are almost synonymous.

However, the word shanah is also cognate with shnei, meaning “two” – both words share the same root letters (ש-נ-ה). What is the connection between time (or change) and the number two?

One of the central and most difficult questions of metaphysics is: Why is there something rather than nothing? The simplest and, in my opinion, the only logical answer is that something exists because the Omnipotent Creator chose to create it. However, the deeper question is: Why is there change?

The Metaphysics of Change

The concept of change lies at the heart of metaphysical inquiry, posing profound questions about the nature of reality, existence, and the passage of time. From the earliest philosophical musings to contemporary debates, the metaphysics of change has been a central theme challenging our understanding of the world and our place within it. This essay aims to explore the historical development of the idea of change in metaphysics and examine the current state of thought, ultimately introducing a Jewish perspective on this philosophical issue.

In Western philosophy, the debate about change begins with the ancient Greek philosophers, who first grappled with the paradoxes of change and permanence. Heraclitus (c. 535–475 BCE) famously declared that “everything flows” (panta rhei), emphasizing that change is the fundamental essence of the universe. He illustrated this with the metaphor that one cannot step into the same river twice: “Upon those who step into the same rivers, different and again different waters flow.”^[2] Heraclitus’s fragments underscore his belief that reality is in a constant state of flux.

In stark contrast, Parmenides (early 5th century BCE) argued that change is an illusion and that true reality is unchanging and indivisible. In his poem “On Nature,” Parmenides posits that “what is, is” and denies the possibility of non-being, thereby questioning the very possibility of change: “It is necessary to speak and to think what is; for being is, but non-being is not.”^[3] This dichotomy between Heraclitus and Parmenides set the stage for subsequent philosophical explorations into the nature of change.

Plato (c. 428–348 BCE) sought to reconcile these opposing views through his Theory of Forms. In dialogues such as the Phaedo and the Republic, Plato proposed a dualistic reality comprising the changing physical world and the unchanging world of Forms or Ideas. According to Plato, the material world is in constant flux but is merely a shadow of the true, immutable reality of Forms: “The things that are seen are temporal, but the things that are unseen are eternal” (Phaedo). This allowed for both change and permanence to coexist within his metaphysical framework.

Aristotle (384–322 BCE) advanced the discussion by introducing the concepts of potentiality and actuality in his works Physics and Metaphysics. He argued that change occurs when something transitions from potentiality (what it could be) to actuality (what it is): “Change is the actuality of that which exists potentially, in so far as it is potentially this actuality.”^[4] Aristotle’s hylomorphic theory posited that substances are composites of matter (potentiality) and form (actuality), providing a systematic explanation for the processes of change in the natural world.

During the medieval period, philosophers like Thomas Aquinas integrated Aristotelian metaphysics with theology, further exploring the nature of change in relation to divine immutability and creation. In the Summa Theologica, Aquinas examines how change operates within the framework of a world created by an unchanging deity: “G-d moves things by His will, which is the first cause of all motion.”^[5] The tension between a changing world and an unchanging Creator added new dimensions to the metaphysical discourse.

The modern era brought renewed focus on the human experience of change. Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) proposed that time and space are forms of human intuition that structure all our experiences. In his Critique of Pure Reason, Kant argued that change is intrinsically linked to the way we perceive the world rather than an objective feature of reality itself: “Time is nothing other than the form of inner sense, that is, of the intuition of ourselves and our inner state” (p. 174). This epistemological view shifted the discussion towards the knowledge of change and intuition of time.

G.W.F. Hegel (1770–1831) introduced a dynamic process in metaphysics through his dialectical method. In The Phenomenology of Spirit, he envisioned reality as a historical process of development, where change is driven by the resolution of contradictions: “The life of the Spirit is not the life that shrinks from death and keeps itself untouched by devastation, but rather the life that endures it and maintains itself in it” (p. 19). Hegel’s philosophy suggested that change is not only real but is the driving force of progress and the unfolding of the Absolute Spirit.

In contemporary philosophy, the metaphysics of change continues to be an active field of inquiry. Alfred North Whitehead (1861–1947) argued in Process and Reality that processes, rather than static substances, are the fundamental constituents of reality: “The actual world is a process, and that process is the becoming of actual entities.”^[6] This perspective places becoming over being, emphasizing the primacy of change in the structure of the universe.

Analytical metaphysicians explore the implications of modern physics on our understanding of change, particularly concerning the nature of time and spacetime in theories like relativity and quantum mechanics. The debate between presentism (only the present is real) and eternalism (past, present, and future are equally real) reflects ongoing attempts to grapple with the metaphysical implications of scientific discoveries.^[7]

Questions about the arrow of time, the nature of temporal experience, and the possibility of timeless truths persist. Philosophers continue to debate whether change is a fundamental aspect of reality or a feature of our perceptions and conceptual frameworks.^[8],[9]

Some contemporary theories focus on the emergent properties of complex systems, suggesting that change arises from the interactions of simpler constituents (Prigogine, 1980). Others examine the role of consciousness in perceiving change, exploring whether temporal experience is a construct of the mind.^[10]

Change in Jewish Thought

The medieval period was a flourishing era for Jewish philosophy, during which scholars endeavored to reconcile traditional Jewish thought with the philosophical ideas of their time, particularly those of Aristotle and other Greek philosophers transmitted through Islamic philosophy. The concept of change was central in their metaphysical inquiries as they grappled with questions about the nature of the universe, G-d’s relationship to change, and the human capacity for transformation.

In his seminal work, The Book of Beliefs and Opinions (Emunot Ve’Deot), Saadia Gaon confronts the concept of change in the context of creation and the nature of the universe. Saadia argues against the Aristotelian idea of an eternal universe, asserting that G‑d created the world from nothing at a specific point in time: “We affirm that G‑d brought the world into existence from non-existence, after absolute nothingness.”^[11] He emphasizes that all changes in the world result from G‑d’s will, underscoring divine omnipotence: “All changes and transformations are due to the will of the Creator, who renews the act of creation continually.”^[12] Saadia discusses time as a created entity, intrinsically linked to motion and change: “Time is a measure of motion, and since motion is created, time itself is also created.”^[13]

In Duties of the Heart (Chovot HaLevavot), Rabbeinu Bahya ibn Paquda (11th century) grapples with the constancy of G‑d versus human change. He contrasts G‑d’s unchanging nature with human mutability: “G‑d is eternal and unchanging, but man is subject to change due to his desires and actions.”^[14]

In Guide for the Perplexed (Moreh Nevukhim), Maimonides (Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon, Rambam, 1138–1204) delves deeply into the nature of change, attempting to harmonize Aristotelian philosophy with Jewish theology. Adapting Aristotle’s concept, Maimonides describes G‑d as the Prime Mover who initiates all motion without Himself changing: “G‑d is the cause of all motion and change, yet He remains unchanged, as change would imply imperfection.”^[15] Maimonides discusses competing views on whether the universe is eternal or created in time: “We affirm creation ex nihilo based on prophetic tradition, although reason does not conclusively refute the notion of an eternal universe.”^[16] Following Aristotle, Maimonides explains that physical substances consist of form (actuality) and matter (potentiality), and change occurs through the acquisition or loss of form: “Change is the transition from potentiality to actuality, as matter takes on new forms.”^[17] Maimonides identifies four categories of change: substantial change, quantitative change, qualitative change, and locomotion: “Every change observed falls into one of these categories, reflecting the complexity of the natural world.”^[18]

Gersonides (Levi ben Gershon, 1288–1344) argues that while G‑d knows all possibilities, human choices are not predetermined, allowing for genuine change: “G‑d’s knowledge encompasses all potentialities, but man’s free choice actualizes change in the world.”^[19] He further posits that matter is eternal, but forms (and thus specific entities) are created and subject to change: “The substratum is eternal, yet the forms imposed upon it are created, accounting for the continual change we observe.”^[20]

In Light of the Lord (Or Adonai), Hasdai Crescas (c. 1340–1410) challenges Aristotelian notions of space, time, and motion. He argues for the infinity of space and time, contradicting Aristotle’s finite universe, which impacts the understanding of change: “Space and time are infinite, and within this boundlessness, change occurs without restriction.”^[21]

In The Exalted Faith (Emunah Ramah), Abraham ibn Daud (Ravad I, c. 1110–1180) seeks to integrate Jewish theology with Aristotelian philosophy. He maintains that while forms are eternal in G‑d’s intellect, matter is subject to change in the physical world: “Forms exist eternally in the divine mind, but in the material world, they combine with matter, resulting in change.”^[22]

Kabbalah balances the concepts of G‑d’s unchanging essence with His dynamic presence in the world. Spanish Kabbalist Azriel of Gerona (c. 1160 – c. 1238), credited with founding theoretical Kabbalah, wrote: “G‑d is both beyond all change and yet present within every change.”^[23]

According to the Chassidic philosophy of Chabad: “All changes in the world… are rooted in the variations of the Divine will.”^[24]

Relational Change

We now return to Rosh HaShanah and the similarity between the words shanah (“year”), shinui (“change”), and shnei (“two”). What does the number two have to do with change or time?

Before the creation, there was one and only G‑d. In the words of the prophet: “For I, the Lord, do not change” (Malachi 3:6). Then G‑d created the world. Once there was G‑d and the world, there was, at least, the appearance of duality. Truth be told, there is nothing besides G-d, and we exist only in the “mind” of G-d. As Maimonides points out, G-d knows the creation by knowing Himself. However, from our vantage point, there appears to be a duality—the Creator and His creation. Thus, the possibility of a relationship emerged. From the Creator’s point of view, this relationship is described as mati ve’lo mati (“reaching and not reaching”).

The Torah states:

Like an eagle that stirs up its nest, hovers (yerachef) over its young, spreading out its wings, taking them up, carrying them on its wings. (Deut. 32:11)

The verb “yerachef” (יְרַחֵף) can be translated as “hovers” or “broods,” indicating a protective hovering. This is the same verb used in the very beginning of the Torah, in the narrative of the creation of the world:

And the Spirit of G‑d was hovering (merachefet) over the face of the waters. (Gen. 1:2)

The Midrash Rabbah elaborates on the term “merachefet,” comparing the Spirit of G‑d to a bird hovering over its nest:

The Spirit of G‑d was hovering (“merachefet”) over the face of the waters – like a dove hovering over her young without touching them.^[25]

Like a mother bird hovering over her young – close enough to protect them but not bearing her full weight on them so as not to crush them – the Creator, so to speak, hovers over the world to give it just enough light to sustain it, but not too much, so as not to overwhelm it. In Kabbalah and Chassidism, this is called mati ve’lo mati – an Aramaic expression meaning “reaches and does not reach.”

The phrase “mati ve’lo mati” originates from the Tikkunei Zohar, which says:

And this galgalta (“skull,” a euphemism for the sefirah of Keter) is called “Ancient of Days” (Atik Yomin), which is not known and not perceived, and from it emerges a thread that reaches and does not reach (mati ve’lo mati).^[26] 

Mati ve’lo mati expresses the paradoxical relationship of the Creator and His creation, which He utterly transcends while exerting His providence (hashgachah pratit) in every detail of the world.

Rabbi Moshe Cordovero, in his work Pardes Rimonim (“Orchard of Pomegranates”), explains this concept, “The Infinite Light spreads into all levels of existence, yet it is as if it does not reach them, for it is beyond their capacity to contain.”^[27]

The Arizal (Rabbi Isaac Luria) places the Zoharic concept of mati ve’lo mati in the context of the primordial tzimtzum – a novel Kabbalistic doctrine developed by him:

And behold, this light of the Kav does not enter and remain as one continuous expansion as it is. Rather, it expands and then withdraws, and again it expands and returns and withdraws, and so continually. And behold, this is the matter of what is stated in the Zohar and the Tikkunim: “a thread that reaches and does not reach (mati ve’lo mati).^[28]

The Baal Shem Tov offers another angle to help us understand the concept of mati ve’lo mati, “G‑d can be found in every place, yet when one seeks to grasp Him, He eludes all understanding. This is the secret of mati ve’lo mati.”[29]

In Torah Or, Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi (the Alter Rebbe) discusses the dynamic of divine revelation and concealment, which aligns with the concept of mati ve’lo mati, “The illumination that extends from the Infinite One, blessed be He, into the worlds is in a manner of drawing close and withdrawing, as it is impossible for the worlds to bear the revelation continuously. Therefore, the light flashes forth and then conceals itself.”^[30]

Similarly, in Likkutei Torah, the Alter Rebbe further explores the interplay between the Infinite and the finite, “The descent of the Divine vitality into the worlds is in a manner of “Reaching and Not Reaching” – it extends to enliven them but does not become entirely invested within them, remaining beyond their grasp.”^[31]

The Mitteler Rebbe delves deeper into the mechanisms of divine emanation and the soul’s experience, “The flow of Divine energy into the worlds is like a pulse – advancing and retreating – so that the creations can absorb the light gradually. This is the secret of mati ve’lo mati, enabling finite beings to receive infinite light.”^[32]

The Rebbe Maharash (Rabbi Shmuel Schneersohn) writes in Likkutei Torah, “The emanation of the Divine light must be measured and balanced – extending and withdrawing – to sustain the worlds. This dynamic is essential for the existence of creation, reflecting mati ve’lo mati.”^[33]

The Rebbe Rashab (Rabbi Sholom DovBer Schneersohn) writes in Hemshech Ayin Beis (5672), “The process of creation involves an ongoing rhythm of Divine light extending and withdrawing. This mati ve’lo mati allows for the possibility of independent existence while maintaining a connection to the Divine source.”^[34]

It is important to remember that mati ve’lo mati describes a relationship between the Creator and the creation that transcends time. As the Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem M. Schneerson, explains, “The concept of “Reaching and Not Reaching” (mati ve’lo mati) is that the Divine light is revealed within the worlds while simultaneously remaining beyond them.”^[35] And, “The Holy One, blessed be He, is beyond the limitations of time – past, present, and future as one. Therefore, it is said, “I, the Lord, have not changed,” for change does not apply to Him. However, regarding the Divine emanation within the worlds, there is the aspect of “Reaching and Not Reaching” (mati ve’lo mati), where the light is revealed and concealed at the same time.”^[36]

Creation responds with its own overture – ratzo va’shov (“running and returning”), which reflects mati ve’lo mati. Both refer to the relationship between the Creator and the creation. Whereas mati ve’lo mati describes this relationship from the point of view of the Creator – who is reaching the creation and not reaching it (that is, He is revealed and concealed at the same time) – ratzo va’shov describes this relationship from the point of view of the creation, which is running toward its Creator and returning to its place in the seder hishtalshelut (ontological chain-like order of the created worlds).

The concept is rooted in the biblical description of the angels in Ezekiel’s vision (Ma’aseh Merkavah):

And the living creatures ran and returned like the appearance of a flash of lightning.” (Ezek. 1:14)

Etz Chaim (“Tree of Life”) by Rabbi Chaim Vital, recording the Arizal’s teachings, states, “All life forces ascend and descend, running and returning…”^[37]

The Alter Rebbe teaches, “One must have both ‘Ratzo’ – yearning for closeness to G‑d, and ‘Shov’ – the return to one’s station to perform Torah and mitzvot.”^[38]

A fitting analogy for the dynamic of ratzo va’shov is the oscillation of the soul. Separated from its Creator, the soul, suffering from separation anxiety, yearns to return to its source. But the closer it gets to the source, the clearer it understands its mission – to rectify the lower worlds and prepare dira b’tachtonim – a dwelling place for G‑d in the lowest of worlds. Thus, the soul obediently returns to its post to perform its duty. But the further away it gets from the source, the stronger the desire to return to the source… And the cycle repeats ad infinitum (see more on this in my essay, “On the Nature of Time and the Age of the Universe“).

While ratzo va’shov describes the same relationship between the Creator and the creation, albeit from the creation’s perspective, there is a significant difference. While mati ve’lo mati is an atemporal relationship transcending time, ratzo va’shov is the principle and the source of time (see Hemshech Samach Vav). It arises from resolving the paradox of running and returning. We see, therefore, that time reflects the dynamics of the relationship between the Creator and the creation.

Rosh HaShanah is the anniversary of G‑d’s creating Adam and Eve – the anniversary of our relationship with G‑d. On Rosh HaShanah, we reaffirm this relationship and renew our vows when we accept upon ourselves the Heavenly Kingdom, and G‑d recommits to the covenant with the Jewish people. On Yom Kippur, we repair whatever aspects of this relationship need improvement. On Sukkot, we finally embrace each other, as it says:

Your left arm is under my head, and your right arm embraces me. (Song of Songs, 8:3)

Therefore, Sukkot is the highest point in time when our relationship with G-d transcends the apparent Creator-creation duality, when these two aspects merge into a complete oneness, at least as far as the relationship between the Jewish people (who are called the “bride”)and their Creator (who is called the “husband,” as it were) is concerned, as the prophets say:

Thus says the LORD: “I remember the devotion of your youth, your love as a betrothed wife, how you followed me through the wilderness, in a land unsown.” (Jer. 2:2)

I will betroth you to me forever; I will betroth you to me in righteousness and in justice, in loving-kindness and in mercy. (Hos. 2:16)

Now, we can finally answer the question we posed earlier in this essay: What does the number two have to do with change or time? The answer is: It takes two to tango. Hasdai Crescas wrote, “The changes in the world are expressions of divine love, aiming to bring creation closer to perfection.”^[39]

The secret of Rosh HaShanah is the mystery of time (shanah, “year”).

The secret of time (shanah) is the mystery of change (shinui).

The secret of change (shinui) is the mystery of relationship (shnei).

And the secret of relationship (shnei) is the mystery of love.

Relational Time

Carlo Rovelli, an Italian theoretical physicist and one of the founders of loop quantum gravity, proposes a very similar perspective on the nature of time in his work.^[40] Rovelli challenges the conventional notion of time as a universal, absolute flow that exists independently of the events within it. Instead, he introduces the concept of relational time, suggesting that time is not a fundamental entity but emerges from the relationships between physical processes.

Rovelli argues that time is not a fundamental aspect of the universe at the most basic level of physical reality. Time emerges from the interactions and relationships between physical systems – it is relational in nature.

In theories like loop quantum gravity, time does not appear in the equations describing the quantum properties of spacetime. At the quantum level, the universe is described by a set of relations without any temporal ordering. Rovelli emphasizes that physical reality is constituted by the relationships between events, not by objects existing in time. The fundamental constituents of the universe are events and processes (that is, change) that relate to each other. Observers may perceive time differently depending on their interactions and the information available. Clocks synchronize not because of an external time but through interactions with each other.

Carlo Rovelli’s concept of relational time presents a significant shift in understanding time’s role in the universe. By viewing time as an emergent property arising from the relationships between events and processes, Rovelli offers a framework that challenges traditional notions of absolute time.^[41] Unbeknownst to Revely, his relational perspective aligns with the Jewing concept of relational time arising out of ratzo va’shov – ebb and flow of relationship between creations, which reflect the ebb and flow of relationship between the Creator and His creation – mati ve’lo mati.

Conclusion

Exploring Rosh HaShanah as the “Beginning of Change” brings to light profound connections between language, philosophy, physics, and spirituality. By examining the roots of the words shanah (year), shinui (change), and shnei (two), we uncover a tapestry of meaning that resonates with the fundamental question of existence: Why is there change rather than permanence?

The metaphysical journey through the philosophies of Heraclitus, Parmenides, Plato, Aristotle, and others illustrates the enduring human quest to understand the nature of change and permanence. These philosophical inquiries are echoed in Jewish thought, where scholars like Saadia Gaon, Maimonides, and the Kabbalists grapple with reconciling divine immutability with a dynamic, changing world.

In Jewish mysticism, particularly Kabbalah and Chassidism, the concepts of mati ve’lo mati (“reaching and not reaching”) and ratzo va’shov (“running and returning”) encapsulate the paradoxical relationship between the Infinite Creator and finite creation. Mati ve’lo mati describes how G‑d’s infinite light both permeates the world and simultaneously remains beyond it, transcending time and space. It represents the ebb and flow of the relationship between the Creator and His creation from the vantage point of the Creator. Ratzo va’shov, on the other hand, reflects the same relationship from the vantage point of the creation. It is also reflected in the soul’s oscillation between yearning for divine closeness and returning to fulfill its purpose within the physical realm.

These concepts highlight that change is not merely a physical or temporal phenomenon but a dynamic interaction between the Creator and creation. Change becomes the very fabric of our relationship with G‑d – a relationship characterized by intimacy and transcendence. The “two” (shnei) inherent in shanah (“year,” time) symbolizes this relational aspect, emphasizing that change arises from the interplay between the Divine and the human.

Rosh HaShanah, marking the anniversary of the creation of humans, is not just a commemoration but an invitation to renew and deepen our relationship with G‑d. It is a time when we reaffirm our relationship and review our wows. On Yom Kippur, we repair wanting aspects of our relationship with G-d.

Understanding change through this lens transforms our perception of time and existence. Time is not merely a sequence of moments but a reflection of the ongoing dialogue between the Infinite and the finite, between G-d and humanity. The changes we experience become opportunities for growth, self-discovery, and deeper connection with the Divine.

As we stand at the threshold of a new year, the insights gleaned from our exploration inspire us to embrace change not with apprehension but with purposeful intent. Recognizing that change is embedded in the divine plan, we can approach Rosh HaShanah with renewed hope and commitment. We are invited to participate actively in the unfolding of creation, contributing to the realization of a world that reflects the harmony and sanctity inherent in the relationship between G‑d and humanity.

In this way, Rosh HaShanah becomes not just the beginning of a new year but the beginning of change – a change that is both personal and cosmic, rooted in the eternal dance of reaching and not reaching, running and returning. It is a profound reminder that in our quest for meaning and connection, we are part of a grand tapestry woven by our Creator, where every moment holds the potential for transformation and renewal.

The secret of Rosh HaShanah is the mystery of time (shanah, “year”); the secret of time (shanah) is the mystery of change (shinui); the secret of change (shinui) is the mystery of relationship (shnei); and the secret of relationship (shnei) is the mystery of love.

Bibliography:

Aristotle. Metaphysics. Translated by Hugh Lawson-Tancred. London: Penguin Classics, 1998.

Azriel of Gerona. “Perush Aggadot.” Pages 123–125 in The Early Kabbalah. Edited by Joseph Dan. New York: Paulist Press, 1986.

Baal Shem Tov, Rabbi Israel, Keter Shem Tov, Section 52.

Bahya ibn Paquda. Duties of the Heart. Translated by Moses Hyamson. New York: Feldheim Publishers, 1962.

Callender, Craig. What Makes Time Special? Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017.

Cordovero, Rabbi Mosheh, Pardes Rimonim, Gate 4, Chapter 4.

Crescas, Rabbi Hasdai. Light of the Lord. Translated by Shlomo Feldman. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990.

Dainton, Barry. Time and Space. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2010.

Freeman, Kathleen. Ancilla to the Pre-Socratic Philosophers. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1948.

Genesis Rabbah. In Midrash Rabbah. Translated by H. Freedman and Maurice Simon. 10 vols. London: Soncino Press, 1939.

Gersonides (Rabbi Levi ben Gershon). The Wars of the Lord. Translated by Seymour Feldman. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1984.

Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich. Phenomenology of Spirit. Translated by A. V. Miller. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977. Originally published 1807.

Ibn Daud, Abraham. “The Exalted Faith (Emunah Ramah).” Pages 85–103 in Medieval Jewish Philosophical Writings. Edited by Charles Manekin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986.

Kant, Immanuel. Critique of Pure Reason. Translated by Paul Guyer and Allen W. Wood. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. Originally published 1781.

Kirk, G. S., J. E. Raven, and M. Schofield. The Presocratic Philosophers. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983.

Maimonides, Moses. The Guide for the Perplexed. Translated by Shlomo Pines. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1963.

McTaggart, J. M. E. “The Unreality of Time.” Mind, 17 (1908): 457–474.

Plato. Plato: Complete Works. Edited by John M. Cooper and D. S. Hutchinson. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1997.

Prigogine, Ilya. From Being to Becoming: Time and Complexity in the Physical Sciences. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman, 1980.

Putnam, Hilary. “Time and Physical Geometry.” The Journal of Philosophy 64 (1967): 240–247.

Rovelli, Carlo. The Order of Time. Translated by Erica Segre and Simon Carnell. New York: Riverhead Books, 2018.

Saadia Gaon. The Book of Beliefs and Opinions. Translated by Samuel Rosenblatt. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1948.

Schneersohn, Rabbi Shmuel, Likkutei Torah, Parshat Bereshit. New York: Kehot Publication Society.

Schneersohn, Rabbi Dovber, Hemshech Ayin Beis, v. 1, Discourse 20. New York: Kehot Publication Society.

Schneerson, Rabbi Menachem M. Sefer HaMa’amarim 5710, Basi LeGani. New York: Kehot Publication Society, 1950.

Schneerson, Rabbi Menachem M. Sefer HaMa’amarim Melukat. Vol. 1. New York: Kehot Publication Society, 1987.

Shneur Zalman of Liadi, Rabbi. Likkutei Torah, Parshat Shir HaShirim, Discourse on “Ani L’Dodi.” New York: Kehot Publication Society.

Shneur Zalman of Liadi, Rabbi. Tanya, Sefer Shel Beinonim, ch. 50–51. New York: Kehot Publication Society.

Shneur Zalman of Liadi, Rabbi. Torah Or. New York: Kehot Publication Society, 1987. Originally published 1837.

Schneuri, Rabbi Dovber, Sha’ar HaEmunah, Chapter 22. New York: Kehot Publication Society.

Tikkunei Zohar, Introduction (17a).

Vital, Rabbi Chaim, Etz Chaim, Heichal Adam Kadmon, Sha’ar 2, ch. 2.

Whitehead, Alfred North. Process and Reality. Corrected ed. Edited by David Ray Griffin and Donald W. Sherburne. New York: Free Press, 1978. Originally published 1929.

Endnotes:

[1] Although shanah is usually translated as “year,” it also means “time.” This could be seen in the famous expression from the oldest book of Kabbalah, Sefer Yetzirah, which divides the creation into three domains—shanah (“year,” or “time”), olam (“world,” or “space”), and nefesh (“soul,” or “spirituality”). (See Sefer Yetzirah, 6:4. For English translation, see Aryeh Kaplan, Sefer Yetzirah: The Book of Creation. Weiser Books, 1997.)

[2] Freeman, Ancilla to the Pre-Socratic Philosophers.

[3] Kirk et al., The Presocratic Philosophers.

[4] Aristotle, Metaphysics, Book IX, 1048b18, 198.

[5] Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Part I, Question 9, Article 1, 48.

[6] Whitehead, Process and Reality, 22.

[7] Putnam, “Time and Physical Geometry,” The Journal of Philosophy 64 (1967): 240–247.

[8] Callender, What Makes Time Special?

[9] Rovelli, The Order of Time.

[10] Dainton, Time and Space.

[11] Saadia, The Book of Beliefs and Opinions, Treatise I, ch. II, 25.

[12] Ibid., ch. III, p. 33.

[13] Ibid., ch. V, p. 47.

[14] Bahya, Duties of the Heart, Gate of Trust in G‑d, ch. 1, 91.

[15] Maimonides, Guide for the Perplexed, Part II, ch. 16, 282.

[16] Ibid., Part II, ch. 25, 329.

[17] Ibid., Part I, ch. 73, 218.

[18] Ibid., Part II, ch. 12, 275.

[19] Gersonides, The Wars of the Lord, Book III, ch. 6, 193.

[20] Ibid., Book VI, ch. 1, 385.

[21] Crescas, Rabbi Hasdai, Light of the Lord, Part II, Principle II, ch. 1–5, pp. 165–180.

[22] Ibn Daud, The Exalted Faith, Book II, ch. 6, 98.

[23] Azriel of Gerona, Perush Aggadot, 123.

[24] Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liadi, Torah Or, on Parshat Vayera.

[25] Gen. Rabb. 2:4.

[26] Tikkunei Zohar, Introduction, 17a.

[27] Pardes Rimonim, Gate 4, ch. 4.

[28] Rabbi Chaim Vital, Etz Chaim, Heichal Adam Kadmon, Sha’ar 2, ch. 2.

[29] Keter Shem Tov, Section 52.

[30] Torah Or, Parshat Vayeira, “V’Heichalzu.”

[31] Likkutei Torah, Parshat Shir HaShirim, “Ani L’Dodi.”

[32] Sha’ar HaEmunah, Chapter 22.

[33] Likkutei Torah, Torah Chadash, Parshat Bereshit.

[34] Hemshech Ayin Beis, v. 1, Discourse 20.

[35] Sefer HaMa’amarim 5710, “Basi LeGani,” pages 102–105.

[36] Sefer HaMa’amarim Melukat, v. 1, “Ani Havayah Lo Shaniti”, pages 237–240.

[37] Rabbi Chaim Vital, Etz Chaim, Sha’ar 1, ch. 5.

[38] Tanya, Sefer Shel Beinonim, ch. 50–51.

[39] Hasdai Crescas, Or Adonai, Part II, Principle I, ch. 3, 247.

[40] Rovelli, The Order of Time.

[41] For more on the relational space, see my essay, “Relational Spaces,” QuantumTorah.com, June 17th, 2019, https://quantumtorah.com/relational-space/.