“Ah yes. Of course. Rashi believed God has a body. After all, he writes that God has a physical hand!”
I still remember how these simplistic words irked me. Spoken by a fairly well-informed Jewish student. And it wasn’t an isolated conversation. More often than not, these forceful attributions to Rashi of belief in a physical deity would draw support from Prof. Marc Shapiro’s The Limits of Orthodox Theology, the early chapters of which claim that such a belief was prevalent in Rabbinic thought.
Judaism Reclaimed contains a lengthy critique of these chapters of The Limits, in which I seek to provide counter-arguments and crucial context to Prof. Shapiro’s claims. Of particular relevance to this week’s parashahis the discussion surrounding Rashi’s belief.
In his commentary to an earlier passage of Shemot “I will place my hand against Egypt” Rashi explains “yad mamash [His actual hand] is used to smite them”. Shapiro cites this as an example of Rashi attributing a real, physical hand to God. Almost concealed in a brief footnote, however, is an oblique reference to Rashi’s own figurative explanation of the term “yad mamash” which appears in parashat Beshalach, shortly before the Song of the Sea. Having again described God’s hand that the Israelites beheld as “yad mamash”, Rashi proceeds to explain that
Many terminologies can be represented by the term “yad” and they are all “yad mamash”; the interpreter should adjust the terminology to suit the context.
It emerges that the term “yad mamash” – actual hand – bears multiple possible interpretations in Rashi’s works. This flexibility is helpful when contemplating the implications of Rashi using “yad mamash” concerning God, particularly in light of his repeatedly stating in his commentary to the book of Yechezkel that
“all mentions of “yad Hashem” in prophetic works are a metaphorical expression of God’s power”.
Rashi’s explanation that there are many possible meanings of “yad mamash” may also assist perplexed readers elsewhere in the book of Shemot, where he employs the term “yad mamash” in an unambiguously figurative manner to describe the proximity of Pharaoh’s daughter’s maidens to the Nile.
Rashi’s terse and concise style, allied with the fact that his comments primarily seek to explain the text in question rather than broadcast his personal opinions, pose a great challenge to those attempting to prove definitively his philosophical position solely on the basis of his writings. Such difficulties are compounded by the fact that much of his commentary on the Torah takes the form of alluding to or paraphrasing (arguably mystical) esoteric Aggadic sources, whose anthropomorphic references to God I also analyse in Judaism Reclaimed.
Nevertheless, some further sources are worthy of consideration. The Machzor Vitri, written by a close student of Rashi, condemns as a heretic anyone who states that God has a body. One who claims that Rashi himself held such a belief must contend with the implications that his close student (who quotes him admiringly throughout his book) was issuing such a severe condemnation of his revered teacher.
The Jewish philosopher Yeshayahu Leibowitz notes in Accepting the Yoke of Heaven that, while Rashi’s commentary is commonly dismissed as representing “naive faith”, those who read his writings with a trained eye will notice a sophisticated philosophical comprehension of God. In one instance, Rashi contrasts the superior prophecy of Moshe to that of other prophets, saying:
All the prophets looked through a dark glass and thought they saw, and our teacher Moshe looked through a clear glass and knew that he had not seen Him to His Face. [Commentary to Yevamot 49b]
Rashi clearly understands that God’s essence is beyond comprehension, and that Moshe, who experienced an enhanced level of prophecy, perceived this more acutely than other prophets.
Furthermore, in a low-key remark at the end of parashat Naso, Rashi comments that the word “midaber”, which is used to describe God “speaking” to Moshe, really means God “speaking to Himself”; Moshe did not hear a voice but rather gained an inner awareness of God’s meaning. This pivotal comment is described by Leibowitz as “astounding.” He adds:
Rashi lived two generations before Maimonides, but in these few words Rashi gives Maimonides’ entire view on prophecy…We are not surprised at Maimonides, for this view of prophecy is in keeping with his entire system of faith. But Rashi, who is always considered to be of naive faith and far from philosophic thought and analysis, says the exact same thing.
Whether Rashi truly intended to encapsulate Rambam’s “entire system of faith” in these few words can surely be debated. Notwithstanding this, I believe that Leibowitz’s observations, allied with the sources highlighted in this post, powerfully challenge the simplistic position of those who condescendingly disparage Rashi as a naive and unsophisticated corporealist.
First posted to Facebook 24 January 2021, here.
