Yakov's question

Rabbi Sacks,

I was wondering about this morning's class, in regard to Dan's question as to why the correct path is expressed in terms of names of God instead of just telling us how to act. I didn't understand your answer how does using names show that we don't really understand the reality. On the contrary if anything it would indicate that we do know something about God, whereas if they were formulated as instructions for human beings than it would be clear that they are speaking in a human framework. could you clarify your answer?

Also I had a different possibility to answer Dan's question. Which is to show us that these are not only human actions which have significance on a social plane but that they are the human applications of abstract Chochmah, ie the Shem Hashem. Is there a reason that you did not take this approach?

Thanks and have a great night,

-Yaakov

Dear Yakov,

I thought that Dan was asking why the Deot are not referred to in terms of "principles" rather than "names of God". By "principles" I thought Dan meant abstract chochma as something that has a formulation that can be applied by man to a given object of thought or subject. In this sense I agree with your idea that Rambam speaks of theoretical knowledge, not practical craft - knowledge.

What I was trying to add, is that Shemot Hashem point to the fact that beyond formulated theoretical abstract chochma is an ultimate or absolute Abstract Chochma which is something beyond the domain of our theoretical apprehension.