360) Why was The Guide For The Perplexed intended to be a secret document?

 

 

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.

229) READING TALMUDIC TEXTS THROUGH MODERN ‘FILTERS’:

INTRODUCTION:

In this article, we examine how the later scholars often view the theological teachings of the early Talmudic rabbis through various lenses. These lenses are either their own, or as is often the case, they are the filters created by a previous generation of scholars. In both instances though, the original Talmudic teachings, particularly those dealing with less tangible, non-Halachic and theological matters, run the risk of being distorted.

This distortion, however, would not necessarily apply to the Talmudic pronouncements and discussions on practical Halacha as by their very nature, they are more concrete, clear and less prone to misrepresentation.

I draw from a technical but fascinating scholarly paper[1] by Yeshiva University graduate, Professor Dov Weiss, who writes:

“[Some modern][2] scholars of Judaism...typically read statements about God in the classical sources of Judaism - Mishna, Midrash and the Talmuds - with a mediaeval philosophical lens. By doing so, they sought to demonstrate the essential unity and continuity between rabbinic Judaism, later mediaeval Jewish philosophy and modern Judaism.”

In other words, the more modern scholars were happy to read Talmudic statements about theology through the ‘more sophisticated’ philosophical lenses of mediaeval rationalists like Rambam. This made such teachings seem more acceptable to the modern mind.

THE VARIOUS FILTERS:

Weiss points out a common mistake that many of us make when we read the classical Talmudic texts: Depending on which side of the fence we sit - we read the Talmud through the filters either of the philosophical/rational views of Rambam, or the mystical views of the mediaeval Kabbalists (both of which emerged during the mediaeval period around the 1200’s).

And when we do this, our understanding of the original classical Talmudic texts (particularly on theological matters) is often distorted.

CONFRONTING THE TALMUDIC THEOLOGICAL TEXTS ‘ON THEIR OWN TERMS’:   

Weiss proposes, therefore, that:

 “[W]e should confront the theological rabbinic texts on their own terms, without the guiding hand of either [rational or mystical][3] mediaeval Jewish framework.”

In other words, we need to look at Talmudic perceptions of divinity as if there were no rational Rambam nor mystical Kabbalah vying for our attention and colouring our interpretation of early rabbinic (Talmudic) theology.

PERCEPTIONS OF G-D IN THE ‘RAW’ TALMUD:

Let us now turn to some ‘raw’ Talmudic statements on the nature of G-d, without the hindsight of  1,500 years of interpretation and explanation:

Weiss cites R. Dr Alon Goshen-Gottstein who notices that:

“[I]n all of rabbinic [i.e. Talmudic][4] literature there is not a single statement that categorically denies that God has body or form.”

Of course, this does not mean that the Talmudic Sages all believed that G-d has some ‘form’, but the fact that a corporeal G-d was not specifically outlawed somewhere within the vast expanses of Talmudic literature, is significant.

The notion that G-d may have been understood by some Talmudic sages as possessing some ‘form’ or corporeality is astounding but not unusual. [See The Notion that G-d has a ‘Body’, and The Tosafists[5].]

Weiss puts it a little more directly:

“[W]e seem to have full acceptance - at least on a straightforward reading – that the rabbinic God, much like the biblical G-d, should be viewed as embodying a human-like personality.”

Ironically, “as further evidence”, Weiss cites Professor Guy Gedalyah Stroumsa, who shows how early Christian thinkers from the same time as the Talmudic period, like Origen (184-253), Justin Martyr (100-165) and Basil the Great (330-379) “criticised the Jewish belief in the corporeality of God.”[6]

Were these sources mistaken or were they able to base themselves on something more substantial?

RABBINIC ANTHROPOMORPHISMS EXCEED THOSE OF THE TORAH:

Weiss continues:

“Posing a problem for later Jewish philosophers, some [Talmudic][7] rabbis anthropomorphize God in ways that outdo anything we encounter in the Hebrew Bible...

 Although in Scripture, God is conceived as having humanlike limbs and organs such as arms, eyes, and legs, and humanlike emotions such as love, anger, regret, and jealousy, rabbinic literature expands the anthropomorphic...field by having God assume humanlike roles and features never entertained by biblical authors.”

What follows are some examples of this rabbinic “intensification” of the corporeality of G-d: - Remember, we are reading the ‘raw’ Talmudic and Midrashic texts without the aid of any later Kabbalistic or rationalist filters, explanations or interpretations:

The 3rd-century Amora, Rav, described  G-d as using His finger (to burn angels who opposed man's creation) and His hand (to diminish the size of Adam after he sinned).  [San. 38a]

R. Akiva (50-135) and others suggest that G-d went into ‘exile’, implying a type of physical bondage with the Jewish people after the Temple was destroyed.

R. Akiva and R. Yishmael debate [Mechilta de'R. Yishmael on Shemot 12:2] how the calculation for the new month was explained to the people.  R. Yishmael says Moshe showed them the new moon, while R. Akiva says the "G-d pointed out with his finger", as He did in three other instances when Moshe found something difficult to understand.

Regarding this particular Mechilta, Professor Meir Bar Ilan points out that in some copies the manuscripts were altered and "corrected" by "scribes who preferred not to relate anthropomorphic ideas to God."
In some instances, the phrase "G-d's finger" was purified to read "a finger" and in other instances, it was omitted entirely.  
Then, in Midrash haGadol, R. Yishmael says that on various occasions, G-d used different fingers to achieve different ends. [ See link to his paper at the end of this article.]

The ‘vertical hierarchy’ of G-d’s relationship with man is downplayed, whereas the ‘horizontal relationship’ is emphasized. Thus G-d is depicted as a ‘friend’ or ‘brother’ – and “the rabbinic God at times assumes a weaker position in the human-divine metaphor.” I would assume that this refers to instances in the Talmud where G-d is happily ‘defeated’ by the scholarly debates of the Sages.

Sometimes G-d is depicted as laughing and dancing with the rabbis, studying and teaching Torah in the study hall, and “spending His free time playing with mythic sea-monsters”. G-d is described as a sage who wears Talit and Tefillin.

There are also dozens of Midrashic references to G-d’s clothing and crown. G-d is depicted as riding on a horse and kissing the walls of the Temple as well as some of “His most beloved human followers”.

G-d is also depicted as suffering alongside the suffering Jews.

These examples portray G-d in a far more corporeal manner than the Torah itself.

MEDIAEVAL RESPONSES TO THE TALMUDIC MODEL OF G-D:

These corporeal depictions of G-d posed some serious questions for some of the more rationalist schools of rabbinic thought which followed during the post-Talmudic and Gaonic period and which eventually culminated with the Rambam in the late 1100s.

The rationalist schools felt the need to ‘neutralize’ the Talmudic and Midrashic literature which dealt with corporeality:

“[T]hese apologetic manoeuvres included decanonizing or devaluing the non-legal sections of the Talmud and Midrash...seeing these strange divine images as ‘poetic conceits’ for the uneducated masses.”

THE ‘MAIMONIDEAN STRANGLEHOLD’:

Then Weiss, citing Yair Lorberbaum makes the point that it was Rambam who:

“...created a virtual stranglehold on Jewish theology – even for later academic scholars.

From Maimonides onward, rabbinic texts concerning God were typically read through mediaeval philosophical lens...

To buttress their view, these scholars typically argued that the rabbis used the phrase ‘as it were’ [keveyachol][8] as a method to signal their lack of seriousness or literalness in what was being said...

In short rabbinic theology was not read on its own terms. ”[9]

EXAMPLES OF CONTEMPORARY ‘APOLOGIST’ LITERATURE:

This apologetic trend of the rationalists continued for centuries where explanations were given for some of the “most daring” corporeal descriptions of G-d in the Talmud as simply being expressions of “the consciousness of the presence of G-d”.[10]

The Midrashic idea that after the destruction of the Temple, G-d suffers with His people, is now described allegorically as an “intimate bond between God and his people”.[11]

And Louis Ginsberg, writing in 1901 states rather categorically that:

“Sa’adia [tenth century] is in full harmony with Rabbinical Judaism when he maintains that the corporeality of God is contrary both to reason and Scripture”.

Weiss refers to these examples as being a result of a:

“...Maimonidean hijacking of classic rabbinic thought...which...imposes abstract mediaeval categories and conceptions retroactively onto rabbinic material.”

BREAKING ‘THE MAIMONIDEAN STRANGLEHOLD - THE EVOLUTION OF REVISIONIST SCHOLARSHIP:

THE 1940s:

Weiss goes on to explain that one of the first scholars to break with this ‘Maimonidean stranglehold’ was  Arthur Marmorstein (d. 1946) who made a distinction between the two Talmudic schools of R. Akiva and R. Yishmael. R. Akiva takes the Torah more literally and “affirms a corporeal God” – while R. Yishmael adopts a non-literal approach on these matters and “rejects divine corporeality”.

By pointing out that there were two very different Talmudic schools within the early rabbinic era, Marmorstein shows that the matter of corporeality was actually debated at that time, and that the school of R. Akiva did indeed maintain the notion of divine corporeality (having authored the Shiur Komah - a work which claimed to give precise measurements of the Divine Being). [18]

THE 1960s:

Later, in 1962, Abraham Joshua Heschel took this a step further when he suggested we reject the Maimonidean tendency to rationalize away the strong corporealism of the Talmudic sages, and stop downplaying and minimizing the rabbinic anthropomorphic tradition.

As Weis emphasizes:

“For him [Heschel][12], when the Akivan school describes God as suffering with His people, for example, it means just that.”

THE 1980s:

Then in 1988, Moshe Idel[13] took this rejection of Maimonidean philosophy even one step further. Idel disputed his teacher, Gershom Scholem’s premise that Kabbalah was an alien and non-Jewish transplantation of other mystical traditions based on Gnosticism and Neo-Platonism. 

Instead, Idel argued that its origins were indeed intrinsically Jewish and very Talmudic. Kabbalistic theurgy, claimed Idel:

 “...already occupied a central place in [Talmudic][14] rabbinic thought.”

This being the case:

“Idel reads anthropormorphic [and corporeal][15] rabbinic texts literally, thereby refusing to adopt a metaphoric reading as Scholem had done.”

THE 1990s:

And finally - in the 1990s - Michael Fishbane did not mince his words after he examined, sans Maimonidean filters, dozens of early rabbinic statements about G-d and declared that according to Midrashic texts, G-d was conceived of as sometimes being a ‘vulnerable’ and ‘limited’ being!

And not only were the Jewish people in need of redemption, but so was G-d who also experienced destruction and was also in Exile![16]

In accordance with this view, Fishbane explained that the expression ‘keveyachol’ or ‘as it were’ (which often followed these expressions of corporeality) was not used to imply an allegorical interpretation as it did in the Maimonidean sense - but rather to show that the Talmudic view of G-d was so literally radical, that they could not even find accurate sources for it within the Torah text itself!

As Weiss puts it, the use of the expression of ‘keveyachol’:

“...signalled the rabbinic self-awareness that their theological claims had a tenuous link to Scripture.”

Interestingly, Weiss makes the point that Fishbane’s position was adopted by “leading rabbinics scholars of the day, such as Daniel Boyarin...Meir Bar-Illan...and Alon Goshen-Gottstein...”

[See also The Hand of G-d: A Chapter in Rabbinic Anthropomorphism by Meir Bar-Ilan]

ANALYSIS:

This has only been a limited presentation of Professor Weiss’ research on how various historical schools have tried to understand and (re?)read the classical Talmudic and Midrashic texts dealing with G-d.

Whether one chooses to agree or disagree with the conclusions of the scholars he cites, I believe Weiss touches a nerve concerning one of the most fundamental issues of Hashkafa (Jewish worldview) that is often overlooked.

Thus, for example, were one to have been schooled in Chassidic theology, it is very likely that one would view theological[17] Talmudic literature through that filter and read Chassidic nuances into the ancient text.  On the other hand, were one to have been schooled in the Lithuanian style of study, one might view theological Talmudic literature as being an extension of the Lithuanian worldview and unconsciously interpolate that view within the text.

The Chassid may consider a Talmudic sage to be like a Rebbe - while the Lithuanian might view the same individual as a Lithuanian scholar. And to compound matters even further, a Rambamist rationalist might frame the theological Talmudic texts more allegorically than literally - while a mystical Kabbalist might read something a little closer to the plain meaning of the original theological text.

Unless we are prepared to remove the filters, it is very difficult to accept that in all probability, the same Talmudic sage may actually have been in an entirely different category altogether!

I believe this holds true not only of the way we filter the classical texts, but it also applies to how we choose (or are told) to relate to every single text and even to ideas we come across.

We are always hearing explanations that amount to:  What it says is not really what it means.

We stop listening to a text or an idea but immediately engage the ‘correct’ filters before that text or idea has a chance to express itself.

Sadly, so many ideas and concepts in Judaism get lost, suppressed, redefined and bent by filters which silence the intention of the original text.

---

[1] The Rabbinic God and Mediaeval Judaism, by Dov Weiss.

[2] Parenthesis mine. Weiss is referring particularly to the more modern scholars from the time of the Wissenschaft des Judentums (1819) until the late 1980s.

[3] Parenthesis mine. (Weiss refers to the difference between mediaeval philosophical and mystical schools as opposed to rational and mystical schools.)

[4] Parenthesis mine.

[5] Both these links deal with some post-Talmudic rabbinic views of a corporeal G-d. Our focus in this article is on a possible Talmudic view of a corporeal G-d.

[6] For a more thorough examination of this issue, see The Body of God in Ancient Rabbinic Judaism: Problems of Interpretation, by Jose Costa.

[7] Parenthesis mine.

[8] Parenthesis mine.

[9] I would add that this was indeed the case with regard to the religious rationalists and the (often secular) academic scholars who followed after Rambam. However, this was not always the case with the Kabbalists (and many Tosafists) who were often known to have taken Midrashic literature quite literally. And it should be pointed out that to a large extent the Kabbalistic view did, in fact, become the de facto worldview of mainstream Judaism despite the influence of the anti-mystical views of Rambam.

[10] Philosophies of Judaism: The History of Jewish Philosophy from Biblical Times to Franz Rosenzweig, by Julius Guttmann (1966) 34.

[11] Ibid. 35.

[12] Parenthesis mine.

[13] Kabbalah: New Perspectives, Moshe Idel.

[14] Parenthesis mine.

[15] Parenthesis mine.

[16] The Kotzker Rebbe is said to have made a similar statement. While the rest of the Jewish world believed in Tikkun Olam (rectifying the world), in Kotzk they had the audacity to believe in rectifying G-d (so to speak?).

[17] As opposed to Halachic.

[18] Not everyone agrees with this distinction between R. Akiva and R. Yishmael, as we saw earlier with Midrash haGadol where R. Yishmael is also described as a corporealist. Furthermore, both R. Yishmael and R. Akiva are said to have authored Shiur Komah.  
Meir Bar-Ilan shows that it is possible that the Midrash haGadol version, quoting R. Yishmael, and which has no parallel in other rabbinic sources, may have been "due to some kind of interior censorship" by scribes unhappy with some of these anthropomorphic depictions of G-d.



DIGEST OF  SOME KNOWN CORPOREALISTS:

The following is a list of some references to Magshimim (corporealists) from around the time of Rambam:

Abraham Ibn Daud reports that masses of Jews believed God to be a material being.1

Maimonides, who argues so forcefully against the corporealists, himself speaks of numerous people, including "the majority" of the ignorant, who held to anthropomorphic views. He also mentions meeting a talmudic scholar who was unsure if God had a body.2

Yedaiah Bedershi writes how it is well known that the belief in God's corporeality was spread throughout virtually all Israel in "previous generations" (i. e. before Maimonides was able to reverse matters).3

Other scholars who testify to anthropomorphic views being held by Jews include R. David Abudarham,4 the anonymous author of Ma'amar ba-Sekhel, 5 R. Isaac ben Yedaiah,6 R. Moses of Salerno,4 and R. Shem Tov ben Joseph ibn Shem Tov, the well known commentator on the Guide. 8

In addition, R. Moses Nahmanides,9 R. David Kimhi,10 R. Abraham Maimonides,11 R. Solomon ben Meshullam da Piera,12 R. Samuel Sapurto,13 R. Shem Tov Falaquera,14 R. Isaac ben Latif,15 and R. Moses Alashkar16 all speak of anthropomorphism being accepted by scholars.17

Although it was difficult for post-medieval scholars to sympathize with the anthropomorphist position, this was not the case for R. Samuel David Luzzatto.18 Although he obviously did not subscribe to this belief, he nevertheless defended it with all his vigor, for, in his opinion, it was all that the masses were able to grasp. Because of this, he maintained that it was proper for the Sages to ascribe corporeality to God. However, sensitive to the implication of what he was saying, he added that this was not a base corporeality, but a perfected corporeality. "The early ones ascribed to God and the angels and the souls a very fine spiritual essence, more subtle than any body known to us but nevertheless characterized by form and build."19 Rather than this being heresy, Luzzatto claimed that it is the doctrine of incorporeality which, through its association with philosophy, leads to heresy. He felt that it would be infinitely better if Jews were to return to the simple belief in a corporeal God.20

4. Ha-Emunah ba-Ramah (Frankfurt, 1853), 47, 91.

2. Guide I: 1; A. Lichtenberg, Kovez Teshuvot ha-Rambam ve-Iggerotav (Leipzig, 1859), II, 8a, 8c; Yizhak Shailat, Iggerot ha-Rambam (Ma'aleh Adumim, 1987), I, 320, 322 (Arabic), 341, 346 (Hebrew).

3 . Sbe'elot u-Teshuvot ha-Rashba (Lvov, 1811), "418 (p. 47b). Cf. R. Yom Tov Ishbili, Sefer ha-Zikkaron, ed. Kalman Kahana (Jerusalem, 1959), 59. See also R. Elijah Delmedigo, Behinat ha-Dat (Vienna, 1833), 25, who, entirely ignoring R. Sa'adah Gaon, gives Maimonides all the credit for discrediting the anthropomorphists.

4. Abudarham ha-Shalem, ed. S. A. Wertheimer (Jerusalem, 1957), 362.

5. (Vienna, 1816), 14a.

6. See M. Saperstein, op. cit., 185-86. R. Isaac refers to "faithless 'Sadducees' who say that God is [composed of] a matter which is finer, purer, and more transparent than the matter of any shining star."

7. See J. L. Teicher, op. cit., 84-85.

8. See his commentary to Maimonides' Introduction to the Guide (p. 10a in the standard edition.)

9 . A. Lichtenberg, op. oil., III, 9d; Kitvei Ramban, ed. Chavel (Jerusalem, 1963), I, 345.

10. Lichtenberg, ibid., III, 3c.

11. Ibid., 16ff.                         

12. See the poems published by Hayyim Brody, Yedi'ot ha-Makhon le-Heker haShirah ha-'Ivrit 4 (1938): 102: האומרים כבוד והחשבים דמות / דעות חלוקים הם ולא אל תנאף באומרים גשמות ואם /לא-ל תמונת האנוש צירו העובדים צורם ופיו לא מרו / כפרו/ כמה חכמים אמרו שעור והם Ibid., 34: .אך האמן / ואמור אמן כי יש מנהיג יושב חביון / ובסוד גשמות / אם הוא בדמות / לדעת זאת אין לך רישיון See also Ibid., 91, for another defense of the anthropomorphists and Ozar Nehmad 2 (1851): 85.

13 . See Kerem Hemed 5 (1841): 12. He is apparently the author of this letter directed to the French rabbis, in which he writes: ככם מגשימים הגויים בהבלי היש .See also Sapurto's letter published in Ginze Nistarot 4 (1818): 44ff. (Halberstamm, who edited this letter, does not believe that the letter published in Kerem Hemed was authored by Sapurto; see ibid., 37.)

14. See his letter in A. Lichtenberg, op. cit. III 23ff (lIt also is found in R. Abba Mari Astruc, Minhat Kena'ot [Pressburg, 1838L 183ff.) The letter is anonymous but there is reason to assume that Falaquera is the author; see Heinrich Graetz, Geschichte der Juden (Leipzig, 1863), VII 474. In reference to Rabad's assertion that there were people "greater and superior" to Maimonides who believed in God's corporeality, .(bגדולים ממנו בקומתם וטובי מראה ובריאי בשר (23 ויתכן שהיו :sarcastically responds Falaquera

15. See He-Haluz 7 (1865): 91-92.

16 . She'elot u-Teshuvot Maharam Alashkar (Jerusalem, 1988), #117 (p. 312). Alashkar singles out the French sages. In his words, they were guilty of מגשימים בפרהסיא , a phrase which actually appears in Bedershi's apology. Alashkar further notes that it was due to Maimonides' works that this widespread anthropomorphism was uprooted.

17. I have deliberately avoided mention of evidence that appears in non-Jewish sources. As is well known, Jewish anthropomorphism was also a common accusation of Muslim polemicists.

18 . See Monford Harris, "The Theologico-Historical Thinking of Samuel David Luzzatto," Jewish Quarterly Review 52 (1962): 317ff.

19. Peninei Sbadal (Przenlysl, 1888), 274. See also R. Judah Aryeh Modena, Magen ve-Herev, ed. Shlomo Simonsohn (Jerusalem, 1960), 40.

20. Iggerot ShadaI (Cracow, 1891), 1195-97.

[Extracted from: Maimonides' Thirteen Principles: The Last Word in Jewish Theology?  By Marc B. Shapiro.]

227) THE TOSAFISTS - SOMEWHERE BETWEEN MAGIC AND THE GUIDE FOR THE PERPLEXED?

12th-century Tosafist Rabbeinu Yosef Bechor Shor of Orleans, Northern France.

INTRODUCTION:

In this article, we will look at some Tosafist rabbis who stood out from their colleagues as being exceptions because they refused to believe that G-d has a body!

I draw, once again, from the scholarly research of Rabbi Professor Ephraim Kanarfogel[1], who has shown how the Tosafist rabbis - who lived in Northern France and Germany between the 12^th and 13^th centuries[2] - were largely mystics and were heavily influenced by the German pietists known as the Chasidei Ashkenaz.

THE MYSTICAL TOSAFISTS:

Already from around the late 1100s, the Chassidei Ashkenaz were reviving an older form of mystical literature known as Heichalot literature[3] which flourished in the post-Talmudic period.

This mystical literature, according to Professor Kanarfogel, preceded the appearance of works like the Zohar and Bahir and was not yet familiar with the system of the Ten Sefirot.

There were a number of Tosafists who got involved with this theurgical[4] (magical) system of Kabbalah and used Divine and angelic names in an attempt to achieve higher spiritual states and manipulate certain outcomes.

Many Ba’alei haTosafot got involved in what Professor Kanarfogel refers to as ‘white magic’.

This revelation is quite astonishing as the Tosafists were generally regarded as the more sober and legally precise of the Talmudic analysts and commentators, and are not usually associated with this type of mysticism. [For more, see here and Mystical Forays of the Tosafists.]

THE ANTHROPOMORPHISM OF THE TOSAFISTS:

Perhaps more surprisingly, the Tosafists indulged extensively in anthropomorphism. This means that they attributed some type of form or shape to G-d. Put differently, they were corporealists who believed that G-d has a body. [See The Notion that G-d has a Body – In Early and Modern Rabbinic Writing.]

THE NON-ANTHROPOMORPHISM OF RAMBAM:

As to be expected, it was Rambam (1135-1204) who severely countered this belief of many of the Tosafists that G-d has a body. According to Rambam, G-d could only be perceived in the mind and imagination of the beholder, but He could never manifest in any physical form. 

Rambam maintained similar views with regard to the Angels, which also could only be perceived in the mind or in a dream or vision but not in reality. [See Angels in Rabbinic Literature.]

Interestingly, no one is quite sure where to position Rashi in the spectrum of debate between corporealism and non-corporealism.

On the other hand, Rabbi Avraham ben David or Raavad (1125-1198), was a famous Talmudic commentator and father of Kabbalah[5] who frequently argued with Rambam. He clearly disagreed with Rambam’s position that believing in a form of corporeality was against the Torah, because ‘many people even greater and better than Rambam’ did espouse of some form of corporeality.[6]

Although Rambam lived (in Egypt[7]) during the period of the Tosafists, it took some time for Rambam’s rationalist writings to penetrate the region of Northern France and Germany where the Tosafists lived. And when his views were eventually known by the Tosafists, they were largely met with fierce theological hostility.

EXCEPTIONS AMONG THE TOSAFISTS:

However, although Rambam and the Tosafists often crossed swords, R. Kanarfogel points out that:

“...contrary to some of the assumptions...a number of Tosafists...in northern Europe during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries plainly assert that the Divine presence cannot be characterized or defined through anthropomorphic terms of physical dimensions.”

R. YOSEF BECHOR SHOR:

One such exception was the northern French Tosafist (who studied with Rashi’s grandson Rabbeinu Tam) namely, R. Yosef ben Yitzchak of Orleans (d. 1171).

Besides his valuable computations regarding the Jewish calendar, he wrote many Selichot, and also a commentary on the Torah according to the peshat (plain, literal and non-Midrashic interpretation) under the name Yosef Bechor Shor.

R. Yosef Bechor Shor begins his commentary on Genesis 1:26:

“Let us make man in our image and form.”

To which he comments:

“This [verse] does not mean that these [G-d and man] actually have a comparable physical image, for no physical conception or image can be attributed to the One above.”

This simple and rather benign interpretation or commentary, which wouldn’t really attract our attention if read today, would have been taken as somewhat subversive during his time and in his place. 

Through this simple sentence he was distancing himself from, and challenging, a core belief of the vast majority of his Tosafist colleagues who did believe that G-d had a form.

Although a peshatist or literalist, he interprets all the various scriptural references to G-d having eyes and hands etc., as a means of expressing lofty concepts to the average man in a way that he can understand and relate to. He refers to the prophet Ezekiel’s visions, where G-d and other heavenly figures appeared, as occurring only within the ‘prophet’s mind’ and not as appearing in reality.

He continues that the same may also be said also for the Talmudic sages who, according to the Talmud, recorded how G-d and the angels appeared to them.

WAS YOSEF BECHOR SHOR ACQUAINTED WITH RAMBAM?

On reading Yosef Bechor Shor’s commentary it is very tempting to think that he may have been acquainted with the writings of Rambam. Although they lived at the same time and although it is possible that Rambam’s writings may have penetrated from Egypt to Northern France before R. Yosef died[8], Kanarfogel suggests that this is highly unlikely. Instead, Kanarfogel understands Yosef Bechor Shor to be:

“a clear-thinking rabbinic scholar who had to confront the vexing but obvious dilemma...How can God, who is essentially non-corporeal, appear to man in seemingly human form?”

Furthermore, he points out that R. Yosef Bechor Shor’s commentary on Genesis “is not expressed in authentic philosophical terms”, as perhaps one would expect from a Maimonidean student or reader.

If Kanarfogel is correct, it is astounding how Yosef Bechor Shor intrinsically and naturally came up with so many other rationalist ideas which also correspond to Rambam.

These include Yosef Bechor Shor’s view on the sacrifices, which also happen correspond with Rambam’s view that they were granted to a people who had just emerged from idolatrous practices and were familiar with a primitive system of sacrifices, as a type of temporary concession - until they advanced intellectually, weaned themselves off the practice, and developed a more ethereal form of communicating with G-d. [See Outspoken Rabbinical Views Claiming that the Torah Recorded Superstitions of its Day.]

Similarly, Yosef Bechor Shor held a belief consistent with Rambam that many details of Kashrut were incorporated into the Law for hygienic reasons.[9]

SUPPORTERS OF RAMBAM’S VIEWS:

Whichever way one chooses to explain the similarities between the Yosef Bechor Shor and Rambam - Yosef Bechor Shor appears to have been an exception among the Tosafists who generally were mystics who took Midrashim and anthropomorphisms quite literally.

This is borne out by a statement (in a letter) of R. Shmuel ben Mordechai of Marseilles, a scholar from Provence (Southern France) and a great supporter of Rambam during the Maimonidean Controversies, who wrote quite tellingly:  

“[T]he majority of the rabbinic scholars in northern France [accept] anthropomorphism.”[10]

Lest one be suspicious of this letter from a supporter of Rambam - in another letter from a mystic and opponent of Rambam, the Ramban (Nachmanides, 1194-1270) to the rabbis of Northern France (around 1232) -  he mentions that the Tosafists insisted that Rambam was mistaken in believing that G-d has no shape or form.[11]

MORE TOSAFIST EXCEPTIONS:

Kanarfogel, however, goes on to cite a number of other Tosafists who also seemed to rebel against the prevailing anthropomorphic view. These Tosafists include:

a) Rashbam.

b) R. Aharon ben Yosef haCohen and his Sefer haGan[12]

c) R. Yitzchak ben Yehuda haLevi and his Pa’aneach Raza[13] which included quotations from Rambam himself!

d) R. Avraham ben Azriel of Bohemia[14] and his Arugat haBosem.

e) R. Isaiah di Trani[15] (or Rid, 1170-1240) and his peshatist Torah commentary Nimukei Chumash, which quotes at length, on three occasions, from Rambam’s Moreh Nevuchim (Guide for the Perplexed)! 

In his commentary on Genesis 1:26 he writes about how he encountered some Magshimim (anthropomorphists) who believed that G-d had a body - and he used the Moreh Nevuchim to challenge that approach!

PROFESSOR KANARFOGEL’S CONCLUSION:

Kanarfogel’s concludes by referring to the letter of Rambam’s supporter, R. Shmuel of Marseilles - mentioned earlier - claiming that most of the Tosafists of Northern France were corporealists:

“Such a claim about the ‘rabbis of northern France’ as a whole now appears to be exaggerated, certainly with respect to leading northern French Talmudic scholars or the rabbinic elite...In any case, the overall spiritual outlook of the Tosafists appears to be much more variegated than we are accustomed to thinking and the non-anthropomorphism strain has a number of distinguished adherents.”

ANALYSIS:

It is fascinating, for a searcher of the truth behind the Hashkafic views of the various rabbinic movements, to see just how difficult it sometimes is to arrive at that truth.

My impression, and I may be wrong, is that Rabbi Professor Kanarfogel experienced just such intellectual angst. In a sense, it was he who pioneered the notion that the Tosafists were not just Talmudic commentators but were also mystics. Not many scholars were previously aware of this.

Yet his intellectual honesty brought him to a counter-intuitive conclusion, through this research, that yes they were mystics but many Tosafists also had a rationalist streak, certainly when it came to the question of whether G-d has a form.

Consider the fact is that we have descriptions like this:

“A letter written from Narbonne to Spain in the 1230s severely ridicules the ‘great men of Israel among the Zarefatim [French] and their scholars, their heads and men of understanding,’ for their magical uses of Divine Names, angels, and demons through conjuration, referring to them as ‘madmen full of delusions’ and the like.”

Yet at the same time we now know that some important Tosafists sailed very closely to Rambam when it came to opposing Hagshama (corporealism or anthropomorphism).

How exactly, then, do we define the Tosafists when our spectrum starts with ‘madmen full of delusions’- incorporates Kabbalistic traditions - delves into ‘white magic’ - runs through complicated Talmudic commentary - and ends somewhere close to Rambam’s rationalist Guide for the Perplexed?

Furthermore, a great irony exists:

Many of the Tosefists who were influenced by the depths of mysticism, somehow imagined the concretization of the Infinite - while those under the influence of Rambam and the breadth of the rational mind, would not allow the Infinite to be constricted within the physical.

---

[1] Anthropomorphism and Rationalist Modes of Thought in Medieval Ashkenaz: The Case of R. Yosef Bekhor Shor, by Ephraim Kanarfogel.

[2] Essentially the Tosafist period encompassed the two centuries between Rashi (1040- 1105) and R. Meir of Rothenberg  (d. 1293). Many of the Tosafists were either the family or students of Rashi.

[3] Not to be confused with Merkava literature which is mysticism dating from a much earlier period.

[4] Theurgy is defined as: ‘the technique of compelling...a supernatural power to do or refrain from doing something.’

[5] Raavad is credited with drawing up the diagram of the Etz Chaim, Tree of Life with the positions of the Kabbalistic Sefirot. The actual drawings were done by his son, Yitzchak the Blind.

[6] See Raavad’s commentary on Rambam’s Hilchot Teshuvah 3:7.

[7] Because he lived in Egypt, he was not regarded as a Tosafist.

[8] R Yosef passed away in 1171 and Rambam passed away in 1204.

[9] Cf. Perushei R. Yosef Bechor Shor Deut. 18:22 and Rambam’s Moreh Nevuchim 3:48.

[10] MS Neofiti 11, fol. 210v.

[11] Kitvei haRamban, Chavel, vol. 1, 345f.

[Interesting, it seems that Ramban may have actually sided with Rambam on this issue because he also writes:

 a) The important Tosafist R. Yitzchak ben Avraham, who also studied under Rabbeinu Tam and commented on several Talmudic treatises, endorsed Rambam’s Mishneh Torah. And Ramban mentions this in the context of Hagshama or anthropomorphism.

b) Ramban cites from R. Eleazar of Worms (one of the last major members of Chasidei Ashkenaz, which - as mentioned earlier - was instrumental in influencing the Tosafists towards mysticism) who also did not concur with the prevailing views regarding anthropomorphism.

c) And Ramban mentions that there were ‘right-minded’ (although unnamed) Chachmei Tzarfat (rabbis of northern France) who did not concur with the prevailing view either.]

[12] Gan has the numerical value of 53. Sefer haGan is a Torah commentary on the 53 weekly Torah portions.

[13] Pa’aneach Raza was composed around 1280 which places it at the end of the Tosafist period.

[14] R. Avraham was a student of R. Eleazar of Worms and compiled Arugat haBosem in 1235.

[15] Also known as Yeshaya haAshkenazi.