Ash recommended you so you can thank him for me seeing this blog.
My understanding of the Rambam is that a shape or form by definition means limitation. Think about it: a body has a place where it begins and ends. If something has any shape, form, image or anything whatsoever it must have a stopping point, i.e., a limitation. In fact, the only way we can conceive of anything is because of its limitation. If everything was blue we wouldn't understand blue, but because there is 'blue' and 'not blue' -e.g. red, we can now understand blue (meaning it's not the 'not blue' that we understand, rather the blue, just we can't get there without the 'not blue'). God doesn't have any limitation so we can never actually understand His essence; we can understand is what He is not. But we will never understand Him because He is beyond limitation and therefore beyond comprehension. Saying God has a body in any conception of body you choose, you are by definition saying that there is comprehensible entity, meaning a limited entity.
That's pretty much the way I understand the Rambam's position, too. But the problem here is that, however you define תמונה, the Torah (במדבר יב:ח) is explicitly saying that משה was shown that God has one. So by the Rambam's own (apparent) definition, God is finite and limited.
Got it. Many seforim do talk about that pasuk, and how Moshe's nevuah was different than others. They all basically say that Moshe had an 'image' of God's ways, But we know it couldn't be an actual picture of Hashem's essence because there is no image for that...
The way I understand it (from many, many sources) is with an analogy from how we connect to other humans. We speak and connect with someone else, and we see their face and hear their thoughts expressed in their words, and we get a 'picture' of the person. The body's shape is an expression of the nature of that person, and how he thinks and talks and what he cares about is an expression of that person. When we know what he likes we have a deeper insight into him. But the person is by no means that body or those words. The actual person is an immaterial mind (call it a soul) which is totally unseeable (Brachos 10a). But we get a grasp of the mind behing the picture through the picture. In essence, this is what it means to 'know' God. We learn His ways and get an 'image' of what he is about (not coincidentally the 613 are like a body...) so Moshe was able to see the full 'picture' of Hashem's was (but only the back, not the actual) but 'that image' still wasn't anything corporeal in the sense that we talk about in our language because that would be impossible.
The word תמונה in Bamidbar may well be a metaphor of some kind. I have no problem with that. But if that's how the Rambam understood it, then he would never have used דברים ד:טו as a proof for God's incorporeality.
Was it a proof or just the truth of what the Torah is saying? (I'll have to check the Rambam again inside, it's just a matter of fact...) Either way, the background of the Pasuk, ונשמרתם מאד לנפשותיכם כי לא ראיתם כל תמונה is pretty clear that there is an important warning to the affect of God's incorporeality...
The language of that yesod in פירוש למשניות פרק חלק is definitely a bit challenging. But, I guess that's par of the course, considering that the Rambam himself warned us it was going to be hard to read. Nevertheless, I haven't been able to come up with an alternative reading of the Rambam than that he's using the posuk as a proof.
By the way, as a friend of mine pointed out just last שבת, the actual and clear context of that posuk - when you consider the next posuk - is a warning not to create physical representations of God.
About your friend's point, true, but it is about Hashem's corporeality that was being deterred as a whole. Even the idea of not making images is to reinforce that point acc. to the Rambam
The pesukim in Parshas Vayera strongly suggest God has some sort of body like a man. Pashut pshat Hashem was one of the three men who visited Avrahama, so when he stayed behind, only two malachim continued to Sedom.
Of course, the pesukim in Bereshis and in iyov also suggest Hashem has some sort of form.
The problem is that I'm working with the Rambam who famously teaches that all those passages are anthropomorphic. That's why the seemingly contradictory meanings of the two usages of תמונה here are so jarring.
That's definitely true. And it's something I've been trying to understand about Rambam's approach to the 13 principles in general. But he does quote this verse and I think it's reasonable to try to figure out why.
Ash recommended you so you can thank him for me seeing this blog.
My understanding of the Rambam is that a shape or form by definition means limitation. Think about it: a body has a place where it begins and ends. If something has any shape, form, image or anything whatsoever it must have a stopping point, i.e., a limitation. In fact, the only way we can conceive of anything is because of its limitation. If everything was blue we wouldn't understand blue, but because there is 'blue' and 'not blue' -e.g. red, we can now understand blue (meaning it's not the 'not blue' that we understand, rather the blue, just we can't get there without the 'not blue'). God doesn't have any limitation so we can never actually understand His essence; we can understand is what He is not. But we will never understand Him because He is beyond limitation and therefore beyond comprehension. Saying God has a body in any conception of body you choose, you are by definition saying that there is comprehensible entity, meaning a limited entity.
The Ramchal also discusses this in Daas Tevunos.
Great having you here!
That's pretty much the way I understand the Rambam's position, too. But the problem here is that, however you define תמונה, the Torah (במדבר יב:ח) is explicitly saying that משה was shown that God has one. So by the Rambam's own (apparent) definition, God is finite and limited.
Got it. Many seforim do talk about that pasuk, and how Moshe's nevuah was different than others. They all basically say that Moshe had an 'image' of God's ways, But we know it couldn't be an actual picture of Hashem's essence because there is no image for that...
The way I understand it (from many, many sources) is with an analogy from how we connect to other humans. We speak and connect with someone else, and we see their face and hear their thoughts expressed in their words, and we get a 'picture' of the person. The body's shape is an expression of the nature of that person, and how he thinks and talks and what he cares about is an expression of that person. When we know what he likes we have a deeper insight into him. But the person is by no means that body or those words. The actual person is an immaterial mind (call it a soul) which is totally unseeable (Brachos 10a). But we get a grasp of the mind behing the picture through the picture. In essence, this is what it means to 'know' God. We learn His ways and get an 'image' of what he is about (not coincidentally the 613 are like a body...) so Moshe was able to see the full 'picture' of Hashem's was (but only the back, not the actual) but 'that image' still wasn't anything corporeal in the sense that we talk about in our language because that would be impossible.
The word תמונה in Bamidbar may well be a metaphor of some kind. I have no problem with that. But if that's how the Rambam understood it, then he would never have used דברים ד:טו as a proof for God's incorporeality.
Was it a proof or just the truth of what the Torah is saying? (I'll have to check the Rambam again inside, it's just a matter of fact...) Either way, the background of the Pasuk, ונשמרתם מאד לנפשותיכם כי לא ראיתם כל תמונה is pretty clear that there is an important warning to the affect of God's incorporeality...
The language of that yesod in פירוש למשניות פרק חלק is definitely a bit challenging. But, I guess that's par of the course, considering that the Rambam himself warned us it was going to be hard to read. Nevertheless, I haven't been able to come up with an alternative reading of the Rambam than that he's using the posuk as a proof.
By the way, as a friend of mine pointed out just last שבת, the actual and clear context of that posuk - when you consider the next posuk - is a warning not to create physical representations of God.
Yah, I'll have to look later bln.
About your friend's point, true, but it is about Hashem's corporeality that was being deterred as a whole. Even the idea of not making images is to reinforce that point acc. to the Rambam
I looked at the לשון, it's really not a stretch to say as I suggested, that the Pasuk is just saying that...
The pesukim in Parshas Vayera strongly suggest God has some sort of body like a man. Pashut pshat Hashem was one of the three men who visited Avrahama, so when he stayed behind, only two malachim continued to Sedom.
Of course, the pesukim in Bereshis and in iyov also suggest Hashem has some sort of form.
The problem is that I'm working with the Rambam who famously teaches that all those passages are anthropomorphic. That's why the seemingly contradictory meanings of the two usages of תמונה here are so jarring.
You asked "How do we know that God has no body?"
The Rambam does not seemingly derive this from the Torah. He seems to derive it from his philosophical understanding of what God is.
That's definitely true. And it's something I've been trying to understand about Rambam's approach to the 13 principles in general. But he does quote this verse and I think it's reasonable to try to figure out why.