<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<br>
R' David Riceman wrote <br>
<br>
<cite>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.
<br>
<br>
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.
<br>
<br>
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).
<br>
</cite>
<br>
<br>
R' david guttmann wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid001301c6e4ff$21d999a0$2e01a8c0@DAVIDHOME"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">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.
</pre>
</blockquote>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
<p class="quote"><span style=""><b>Meshech Chochma (Shemos 12:21):</b>
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. <b>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</b>.
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.<br>
</span></p>
<p class="quote"><span style="">I don't think your alternative is
relevant for the masses and my original question remains.<br>
</span></p>
<p class="quote">Daniel Eidensohn<br>
<span style=""><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<br>
</body>
</html>