[Avodah] Rambam on corporality

[Daniel Eidensohn]

R' David Riceman wrote

I think this misstates the Rambam's opinion.  What the masses 
misunderstand is the nature of existence, not the nature of God; they 
predicate existence only of physical things (not, for example, of the 
British constitution). Incidentally, it's not only the masses: Boswell 
reports that Dr. Johnson shared this misapprehension.

Even the philosophically sophisticated don't understand what it means 
for God to exist, since existence predicated of God is wholly different 
than existence predicated of anything else (MN I:35,57).  As a result, 
while the Bible uses imprecise language to describe God's existence, 
there is no precise language available.

The Bible tries to correct people's misapprehensions about God but not 
their misapprehensions about the nature of existence.  The Bible uses 
some phrases indicating that God is not physical ("v'el mi t'damyuni 
v'eshveh", MN I:55). Even someone who is philosophically naive should 
realize that there is a way to harmonize those verses with the ones 
which seem to attribute corporeality to God's existence.  Thinking of 
God's existence as a positive attribute is a mistake but not a heretical 
one (MN I:51).


R' david guttmann wrote:
> May I suggest an alternate solution:
>
> Rambam in 1:35 writes that even children have to be taught that G-d is not
> corporeal. He also says further that attributes may be taken literally. In
> 1:26 R. Eidensohn quoted : "thus that which is neither a body nor existent
> in a body does not exist in their opinion." I read it as people can accept
> either one of the two. Isn't "nor existent in a body" attributes? R.Kafah
> indeed translates "Ulefichoch Toaruhu betoarim hamorim al gashmus". So
> people may and can accept "attributes indicating corporeality" but may not
> accept corporeality itself. I think that in 1:35 Rambam makes it quite clear
> that even the simple may not accept corporeality as he enumerates a
> comprhensive list: children,women, stupid ones,and those of deffective
> natural disposition. 
>
> Thus because everyone must be taught that G-d is not coropreal, for them to
> accept that he exists they may be taught attributes that point to
> corporeality. 
>   
You are suggesting a level of sophistication - distinction between 
corporal attributes versus corporal existence - which the Rambam makes 
no mention of in 1:26. A distinction which is beyond the comprehension 
of the masses - as the Rambam clearly state there. There is no question 
that the Rambam states in Yesodei HaTorah 1:11 that anthropomorphisms 
are metaphors. There is no question that the Rambam states elsewhere in 
Moreh Nevuchim that one must educate people away from belief in 
corporality. But he gives no indication in 1:26 that when the Torah uses 
anthropomorphic descriptions it is so that the masses will understanding 
they are metaphors.

The chidush is that he says that the Torah itself speaks in 
anthropomorophic terms because the masses can't accepted G-d's existence 
otherwise. His point is reflective of the difficulty in understanding 
the abstract non-corporal understanding of Yiddishkeit. The Meshech 
Chochma - while agreeing with the problem - offers an alternative solution.

*Meshech Chochma (Shemos 12:21):* It is said about the Jews that they 
are believers the descendants of believers (Shabbos 97a). However Taanis 
(5b) notes that we find that non‑Jews have stronger religious beliefs 
than Jews even when their religion is utter nonsense, “The Kittites 
worship fire and the Kedarites worship water, and even though they know 
that water can put out fire they have yet not changed their gods but My 
people hath changed their G‑d for that which doth not profit.” And even 
if you want to answer that the faith that is being praised, is believing 
in things that will happen in the future such as the resurrection of the 
dead—non‑Jews also have strong faith in events that will happen in the 
future. To explain the distinction between Jewish and non‑Jewish faith, 
one must note that the appreciation of things such as love, beauty and 
power are all inherent in a person. The ancient peoples sanctified all 
these natural powers and placed high value on them and described them as 
resulting from specific gods. Thus they had a god of beauty, a god of 
power and a god of love as is well known. A person who personified one 
of these natural attributes was described as a godly person. Even today, 
the peoples of the world make images and sanctify these 
tangible—directly experienced characteristics. Even the Moslems have 
sanctified the grave of their savior in Mecca and done other things. 
Consequently, we see that the emotions and senses directly support their 
faith which is built upon experience and imagery. Thus, non‑Jewish 
religious faith is essentially just an extension of natural emotion. 
However, that is not how G‑d conceives religious faith…. In fact, all 
tangible existence is totally separate from the one Creator. *All this 
is such pure abstract intellectual awareness that Chovas HaLevavos (1:2 
Shaar HaYichud) asserts that true service of G‑d is for either the 
philosopher or prophet*. Nevertheless, all Jews—even without reaching 
the levels of prophets or even philosophers—truly believe in these pure 
abstract thoughts of His existence and His unity and they scoff at all 
that which is entirely based upon natural emotional experience. They 
understand that faith based entirely on innate human feelings and 
thoughts is worthless and transient representing only conjecture—G‑d in 
the image of man. This is why Chazal state, “How did the Jews merit to 
recite the Shema which extols the unitary of G‑d? Because they were 
descendants of Abraham, Yitzchok and Yaakov.” Because of this knowledge 
gained from their forefathers—Jews understand this profound abstract 
philosophical issue and scorn emotion based faith. How did G‑d ensure 
that Jews would continue to believe in this abstract unity and prevent 
the Jews from being confused and misled by their emotions? The answer is 
that He greatly multiplied intellectual abstract Torah both in the 
Written Torah and the Oral Torah. This was part of a two—part program. 
Firstly to train the intellectual powers and strengthen them so that 
they would overcome the power of fantasy and imagination. Secondly, to 
deal directly with the misdirection produced by the untrained emotions, 
He gave them mitzvos which worked against harmful feelings and 
strengthened and sanctified positive feelings. For example, the natural 
power of love was directed to love of fellow man, family and society. 
The natural power of vengeance was used against the enemies of G‑d. The 
natural aspect of kindness of channeled into doing things for other 
people. The appeal of the esthetic was directed to in a controlled 
fashion towards specific mitzvos such as esrog and which were time bound 
to holidays. By losing their significance with the passing of the 
holiday, it taught that beauty is not an end in itself but only the 
means of serving G‑d.

I don't think your alternative is relevant for the masses and my 
original question remains.

Daniel Eidensohn


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20061009/34fadf9b/attachment-0001.htm>