Introduction
Rambam (Maimonides, 1135-1204) places tremendous importance on the meaning and usage of words. He dedicates major sections of his Moreh Nevuchim (Guide For The Perplexed[1]) to explain how words are used in the Torah. He believed that most of the rabbinic world during his time misunderstood and misrepresented many basic words, especially those used in relation to G-d. Yet, for some reason, he also wanted this writing to remain hidden. This article explores some readings selected from early sections of the Moreh Nevuchim.
Against Hagshama – Corporeality
According to many accounts, the
rabbis around the twelfth century were largely inclined to believe in Hagshama,
corporeality, where G-d is said to have some “form” or even a “body”.
This would seem most surprising to many, especially from our modern perspective
where this certainly is not the case today. However, it is probable that many,
if not most, of the rabbis around the Tosafist period in northern France
and Germany (Ashkenaz), were “hagshamists” or corporealists, including
Rashi.
[See Kotzk Blog: 074) THE NOTION THAT G-D HAS A 'BODY' - In Early and
Modern Rabbinical Writings:]
Rambam was well aware of this and he
dedicated his Moreh Nevuchim to try and eradicate such belief as he
maintained it was too close to idolatry. He was quick to point this out by his
outspoken rejection of common interpretations of various words and concepts,
particularly the many biblical anthropomorphic references (where G-d is
described in human terms) which form part of the very sensus literalis or
peshat, of the Torah text itself.
Again surprisingly, rabbinic
literature, particularly Talmudic and Midrashic sources, have
many descriptions of G-d as a corporeal being, having some physical form. One
well-known example is the Talmudic description of G-d wearing Tefillin[2]
(although, of course, today we largely interpret these metaphorically, this
wasn’t always the case). In a work entitled Shiur Komah, attributed to
R. Yishmael and R. Akiva (first and second centuries CE), the angel Metatron is
said to have revealed these teachings to Rabbi Yishmael, who in turn
transmitted them to Rabbi Akiva. The purpose of this book is to “measure”
the “figure in the form of a man” which Ezekiel had seen in his vision.[3]
The Karaites took umbrage to the Shiur
Komah and used it as one of their arguments against the Rabbinites, yet Ibn
Ezra, Rabbi Moshe Narboni and Yehuda Halevi defended the Shiur Komah
maintaining it was not to be taken literally but rather as an allegory for
much deeper mystical teachings. The Zohar (although only published[4] in
around 1290) is traditionally said to have been authored by R. Shimon bar
Yochai one of Rabbi Akiva’s most eminent students, who was influenced by this book.
However, Rambam rejected the Shiur Komah in its entirety as it implied
that G-d was a corporeal or physical being:
I never ever believed it came from
the rabbis...It is nothing more than a forgery by the Greek darshanim. It
would be best to destroy the work as it is nothing but idolatry.[5]
Against Anthropomorphisms[6]
Rambam took his opposition to
corporeality a step further in that he interpreted all anthropomorphic
references in the Torah, as mere metaphors. Marc Shapiro (2011:49-50)[7]
explains that Rambam’s rejection of corporeality was quite revolutionary
because:
there is little doubt that a popular
view in rabbinic times was that G-d indeed had a form.
He cites Meir Bar-Ilan who explains
that:
in the first centuries Jews in the
Land of Israel and in Babylon believed in an anthropomorphic G-d.[8]
Shapiro (2011:52) also cites Philo
(b. 25 BCE) who adopted the approach that while these anthropomorphisms were
the proclivity of the unsophisticated, nevertheless there was some use for its
misguidedness in that:
…we must be content if such men can
be brought to a proper state, by the fear which is held over them by such
descriptions.[9]
But Rambam did not share the view
that at least these people still held onto their faith albeit by a false
theology. Leo Strauss explains that Rambam
wanted to address those “believing Jews who are perfect in their religion”
but have additionally “studied the sciences of the philosophers, and are
perplexed by the literal meaning of the Law.”[10]
Rambam dedicates his Moreh
Nevuchim to his student, Yosef who starts out not knowing that according to
the Jewish view and “according to demonstration”, angels have no bodies[11] and G-d,
too, has no body[12]. The
problem is that the peshat, or plain reading of the biblical
texts lends itself to corporealist interpretations of G-d, Heaven and angels.
According to Straus, Rambam held that belief in G-d’s corporeality was
tantamount to idolatry and that technically:
[n]ot idolatry but the belief in G-d’s
corporeality is a fundamental sin.[13]
Besides defining corporeality as
idolatrous, Rambam considers it nonsensical and childlike:
לכן צריך לבארו לאשר לקחו עצמם בשלמות האנושי ולהסיר מהם אלו המחשבות
המתחילות משני הנערות אליהם
For this reason it behooves to
explain the matter to those souls who will grasp at human perfection and…put an
end to the fantasies that come to them from the age of infancy.[14]
Similarly Rambam writes:
The purpose of everyone endowed with
intellect should be wholly directed to rejecting corporeality.[15]
Rambam criticises rabbis who take
Midrashim literally
Rambam does not mince his words and
he attacks those within the rabbinic community who would have taken the oft
fanciful interpretations presented in Midrashim as literal depictions of
biblical reality:
וראינו עוד - ש'הדרשות' ההם אם יעין בהם סכל מהמון הרבנים לא יקשה
עליו מהם מאומה; כי לא ירחיק הסכל הנמהר הערם מן ידיעת טבע המציאות הנמנעות
If an ignoramus among the multitude
of Rabbanites should engage in speculation on these Midrashim, he would find
nothing difficult in them [i.e., he would take them literally and on face
value] inasmuch as a rash fool, devoid of any knowledge of the nature of being
[i.e., of reality][16], does not find
impossibilities hard to accept.[17]
Rambam praises Targum Onkelos and
Targum Yonatan
Maimonides praises the Aramaic Targumim
or translations of the Torah by Onkelus the Convert and Targum Yonatan,
who tried to move away from literal and anthropomorphic translations. As Straus
puts it, Rambam “does explicitly what Onqelos did implicitly”.
Rambam attempts to systematically
demonstrate a non-literal reading of a variety of words the Torah projects upon
G-d, such as voice, speech, image, likeness, sit,
stand, ascend, descend etc, and the readers are told that
the first purpose of the Guide is to divest these difficult biblical
words of their corporeal implications.
On a technical point, Maimonides
mentions that Onkelos usually translates biblical statements like “The L-rd
will descend” (Exodus 19:11), as G-d “manifesting”. Onkelos does
this so that readers should not think that G-d really descends upon the earth.
However, there is one exception. On
the verse in Genesis 46:4 “I will descend with you into Egypt”, Onkelos
does not substitute his usual euphemism for G-d descending (i.e., as G-d
manifesting) but he leaves it to be read literally as “I will go down
with you into Egypt”. The reason is that this narrative is introduced by
the defining expression “And G-d spoke to Israel in the visions of the night”.
In other words, from the outset, this narrative is framed, not as a depiction of
reality but instead as a vision. And because it was clearly presented as
a “vision of the night”, Onkelos was prepared to leave the literal
reading just as it was:
[T]here is a great difference
between that which is said to happen in a dream or in the visions of the
night…and that of which it is said without qualification.[18]
Rambam on “vestiges” of idolatry in
the Torah
Straus, however, observes that Rambam
is actually far more radical than just wishing to redefine biblical vocabulary.
Rambam believed that the Torah contained allusions to diluted vestiges of
ancient idolatry and it needed to do so as a concession to the Israelites, as
they would not have followed G-d unless the Torah resembled the then-contemporary language and ritual of religion as it was understood at that time.
Joshua Berman (2020:4)[19]
takes the example of animal sacrifices to illustrate this point:
Rambam saw the institution of animal
sacrifice in the Torah as concessive in nature. Israel knew no form of worship
other than the worship of idols she had seen in Egypt. The Almighty chose,
therefore, to establish norms of worship in a form the nation could recognize.
In the ancient context, religion was
defined by sacrifice. The ancient Israelites would not have comprehended a
religious system that did not involve sacrifice. Therefore, the complex
institution of sacrifices became part of the Israelite system of worship, not
because of its intrinsic spiritual value but because of cultural and
theological considerations at that time.
In his commentary on Leviticus, Ibn
Caspi (1279-1340) endorses this idea by saying that he will not comment on the
Torah portions dealing with sacrifices, because:
...it is well known that Moses was
coerced into writing them since God doesn’t really want sacrifices. They were
only meant to accommodate that generation...and there is no harm in not
mastering those sections...as the commentary of Rashi is sufficient.
Rambam takes two lengthy chapters in
his Moreh Nevuchim[20] to
contextualise the institution of the sacrifices. Berman (2020:4) explains:
[Rambam] identifies the specific
heathen practices relating to the god Ares, Hindu practice, and the cultic
norms of an ancient culture he knew as Sabean…
He explains specific mitzvot
[precepts][21], such as the prohibition
against using honey or leavened bread in the sacrificial worship of the Temple,
in light of these ancient practices.
In ancient mythology, although Ares
represented courage and war, he also stood for the utmost brutality, bloodlust
and savagery. Ares was given various animal sacrifices after victory.
Stauss similarly speaks of these
Sabian practices:
It looks as if Maimonides wished to draw
our attention to the fact that the Bible contains idolatrous, pagan, or
“Sabian” relics. If this suspicion should prove to be justified, we would have
to assume that his fight against “forbidden worship” and hence against
corporealism is more radical than one would be inclined to believe or that the
recovery of Sabian relics in the Bible with the help of Sabian literature is
one of the tasks of his secret teaching.[22]
The eight-hundred-year-old Guide
takes on new meaning today because only since the time of Napoleon, have these
types of “Sabian” writings, known as the traditions of the Ancient Near
East, been discovered and analysed. We now know more about the practices of the
Ancient Near East than ever before.
Maimonides wishes he could have had
access to this wealth of knowledge:
[T]hey have been out of practice and
entirely extinct since two thousand years. If we knew all the particulars of
the Sabean worship, and were informed of all the details of those doctrines, we
would clearly see the reason and wisdom of every detail in the sacrificial
service, in the laws concerning things that are unclean, and in other laws….”[23]
Rambam adjures his readers to
secrecy
It is hard enough to say such things
in the religious world today so one can imagine how much harder it would have
been for Rambam to express “Sabian” connections to the Torah, back in the
twelfth century. This is why Rambam had to conceal these radical teachings of
his. Rambam writes in his Introduction to the first part of his Guide:
I
adjure - by God…- every reader of this Treatise of mine not to comment upon a single word of
it and not to explain to another anything in it save that which has been
explained and commented upon in the words of the famous Sages of our Law who
preceded me…[24]
Rambam is binding his followers to a
promise that they will only quote him on safe matters that have already been
expounded upon by the sages of the Talmud. Nevertheless, he still is
prepared to put his ideas in writing because:
סוף דבר אני האיש אשר כשיציקהו העניין ויצר לו הדרך ולא ימצא תחבולה
ללמד האמת שבא עליו מופת אלא בשיאות לאחד מעולה ולא יאות לעשרת אלפים סכלים, אני
בוחר לאמרו לעצמו, ולא ארגיש בגנות העם הרב ההוא
To sum up: I am the man who when the
concern pressed him…and he could find no other device by which to teach a
demonstrated truth other than by giving satisfaction to a single virtuous man while displeasing ten thousand
ignoramuses – I am he who prefers to address that single man by myself and I do
not heed the blame of those many creatures. [25]
Rambam writing for dual audiences
Rambam was a complex and
controversial thinker and notoriously wrote differently for different
audiences, including for the ”vulgar” or “ignorant masses” (his
words) as well as those “who have studied the sciences of the philosophers”.
As Straus put it:
Maimonides deliberately contradicts
himself, and if a man declares both that a is b and that a is not b, he cannot
be said to declare anything.[26]
This is why it
is sometimes confusing and difficult to ascertain for which audience Rambam is
writing. Rambam explains his vacillating position by distinguishing between “true
beliefs” and “necessary beliefs.” The latter are based on tradition
and keep the masses spiritually satisfied, but essentially the core of Judaism
comprises only the “true beliefs”.[27]
Unfortunately, most people are not ready for “true beliefs” and
therefore much of religion revolves around “necessary beliefs”.
Describing the
nature of “necessary beliefs”, Shapiro (2011:119) cuts straight to the chase:
[I]t is ‘necessary’ for the masses
to believe that God is angry if they disobey him in order for them to control
their behaviour. In addition, it is ‘necessary’ for the masses to believe that
God responds instantly to the prayer of someone wronged or deceived; for them
to believe otherwise would be damaging to their faith…
Ironically “true
beliefs” sometimes need to be concealed almost like the mystical tradition
was once concealed. This, therefore, appears to be the reason why Rambam intends
his Moreh Nevuchim (Guide For The Perplexed) to be a secret
document, and why he feels compelled to write:
God…knows that I have never ceased
to be exceedingly apprehensive about setting down those things that I wish to
set down in this Treatise. For they are concealed things: none of them has been
set down in any book – written in the religious community in these times…[28]
[1] Referred to alternately in the two English
translations as Guide For the Perplexed (M. Friedländer,1903) and Guide
Of the Perplexed (S. Pines, 1963).
[2]
b. Berachot 6a.
[3]
Ezekiel 1:26.
[4]
In manuscript
form.
[5]
Maimonides,
Teshuvot
HaRambam 117.
[6]
Ascribing to
G-d human characteristics and form, such as G-ds “hand”.
[7]
Shapiro, M.M.,
2011, The Limits of Orthodox Theology, The Littman Library of Jewish
Civilization in association with Liverpool University Press.
[8] Bar Ilan, M., 1993, ‘The Hand of God: A Chapter
in Rabbinic Anthropomorphism’, in Rashi 1040-1090: Homage a Ephraim E.
Urbach, Paris, 331.
[9] Philo De somniis i. 40:237.
[10] Introductory Essay by Leo Strauss to Shlomo
Pines’ translation of The Guide of the Perplexed, The University of Chicago
Press, 1963, xvii.
[11] Maimonides, Guide for the Perplexed, I 43, “For
according to our opinion the angels have no bodies”. See also I 49.
[12] Maimonides,
Guide for the Perplexed, I 9, “For it will be demonstrated to you that He…is
not a body”.
[13] Introductory
Essay by Leo Straus (Pines 1963), xxi-xxii.
[14] Maimonides, The Guide of the Perplexed (Pines 1963), I 27.
[15] Maimonides, The
Guide of the Perplexed (Pines 1963), I 28.
[16] Parentheses
mine.
[17]
Maimonides, The
Guide of the Perplexed (Pines 1963), I, 6a.
[18]
Maimonides, The
Guide of the Perplexed (Pines 1963), I 27.
[19] Berman, J., 2020, Ani Maamin: Biblical
Criticism, Historical Truth, and the Thirteen Principles of Faith, Maggid
Books, Jerusalem.
[20] Maimonides,
Guide for the Perplexed, 3:32 and 3:46.
[21] Parenthesis
mine.
[22] Maimonides, The Guide of the Perplexed (Pines
1963), Introductory Essay, xxvii.
[23]
Maimonides,
Guide for the Perplexed, 3:49. Translation by M. Friedländer (1903).
[24] Maimonides,
The Guide of the Perplexed (Pines 1963), Introduction, 9a.
[25]
Maimonides, The
Guide of the Perplexed (Pines 1963), I.
[26]
Maimonides, The
Guide of the Perplexed (Pines 1963), Introductory Essay, 1963, xv.
[28]
Maimonides, The
Guide of the Perplexed (Pines 1963), Introduction, 9a.
No comments:
Post a Comment