[Avodah] Rambam on corporality

[Daniel Eidensohn]

There is an apparent contradiction in the position of the Rambam 
regarding belief in Gd's physicality.

Rambam (Hilchos Teshuva 3:7): Minim are those who say G‑d doesn’t exist, 
or that the world has no ruler, or that it has a ruler but there are two 
or more divine entities, or that there is one divinity but that he has a 
body and physical attributes, or denies that G‑d was the First Cause and 
Rock of the universe or worships the stars or anything other than G‑d 
because he views it as an intermediately to G‑d. Whoever belongs to one 
of these five categories is a Min.

Raavad(Hilchos Teshuva 3:7):*): *Contrary to the Rambam assertion, a 
person who believes in G‑d but thinks that G‑d has a physical body is 
not called a heretic. There are a number of sages who are greater and 
better than the Rambam who hold this mistaken view—because they take 
literally the misleading Biblical verses and esoteric medrashim

*Rav Elchonon Wasserman****(Explanations of Agados #2): *The view of the 
Rambam is that a person who believes G‑d is physical is a heretic. The 
Raavad commented: “There are greater and better people than the Rambam 
who erred in this issue because of mistakenly accepting the literal 
meaning of verses and agada.” I heard in the name of Rav Chaim Brisker 
that the Rambam views that there is no such thing as inadvertent heresy. 
Irrespective of how a person arrives at a mistaken belief, the fact is 
that he believes something which is heretical. Furthermore, it is 
impossible to be a member of the Jewish people without proper faith. Rav 
Chaim used to say that “a nebach apikorus (mistaken heretic) is also a 
heretic.” It would appear that he must be correct since all heretic and 
idol worshippers are mistaken. Obviously there is no one more mistaken 
than one who sacrifices his son for idol worship and yet he is subject 
to capital punishment. However, this approach is problematic since a 
baby also doesn’t have proper faith and yet he is part of the Jewish 
people. Furthermore, a person who was denied proper education (tinok 
shenishbah) is allowed to bring a sacrifice to atone—without being 
labeled as a heretic (Shabbos 68b). Thus from these two cases it would 
seem that the Torah exempts an unwitting error also in the realm of 
beliefs? This can be answered by what we mentioned previously—the 
foundation principles of faith are obvious and no intelligent person 
could accept heretical beliefs. It is only because a person wants to 
reject his obligations to G‑d that he rationalizes that religious 
beliefs are not correct. Therefore, there is no such thing as an 
inadvertent heretical belief. On the other hand, if a person doesn’t 
intend to rebel against religion but mistakenly thinks something sinful 
is permitted by the Torah—then this is truly inadvertent. Perhaps this 
is what the Raavad meant that the person erred “because of 
misunderstanding verses and agada.” In other words, the person erred not 
because he wanted to reject religion but because he mistakenly accepted 
the literal meaning of religious texts. Thus, the Raavad would classify 
him as someone who mistakenly says a sin is permitted according to the 
Torah and therefore inadvertent heresy does exist… The Rambam on the 
other hand seems to feel that one could not err in thinking that G‑d has 
a body and that if he was serious about his religion it would be obvious 
to him that the texts cannot be taken literally…

However the Rambam [trans. Shlomo Pines] in Moreh Nevuchim (1:26):* *You 
know their dictum that refers in inclusive fashion to all the kinds of 
interpretation connected with this subject, namely, their saying: The 
Torah speaketh in the language of the sons of man.The ‘meaning of this 
is that everything that all men are capable of understanding and 
representing to themselves at first thought has been ascribed to Him as 
necessarily belonging to God, may He be exalted. Hence attributes 
indicating corporeality have been predicated of Him in order to indicate 
that He, may He be exalted, exists, inasmuch as the multitude cannot at 
fIrst conceive of any existence save that of a body alone; thus that 
which is neither a body nor existent in a body does not exist in their 
opinion.

Rambam thus states that the Torah describes G-d in physical  terms 
because the masses can not accept the existence of a non-physical G-d. 
Thus the Torah itself has to teach the masses heresy - which according 
to the Rambam means that they will lose their Olam HaBah.!?

Prof. Marc Shapiro discusses this issue p 68-70. and asserts that Rambam 
held that for the masses this was the inevitable starting point from 
which they had to be educated to proper belief. This is the view of the 
standard commentaries to the Moreh Nevuchim of Abarbanel, Shem Tov and 
Efodi.

I would appreciate other sources that acknowledge the Rambam's apparent 
contradiction and how they reconcile it. It is clear that the Raavad, 
Rav Chaim, and Rav Elchonon did not understand the Rambam requiring a 
two step processes starting with heresy. Assuming that in fact the 
Rambam felt that inherently that heresy is the starting point of all - 
does this mean that the Rambam agreed with the Ramban - that proper 
service of Gd requires acts of "bribing Satan" e.g., the scapegoat on 
Yom Kippur? In other words how does this understanding of the Rambam 
manifest itself in other aspects of avodas haShem?

gmar chasima tova

Daniel Eidensohn

   



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20061001/19146f3b/attachment-0001.htm>