One Torah to guide them all: divine depictions and careful contradictions

The chapter of Judaism Reclaimed which relates to parashat Beha’alotecha opens by observing how the parashah’s narratives provide a clear insight into the broad range of spiritual levels that existed among the Jewish People in the Wilderness. We look at how the Torah caters for this diversity with laws which are nuanced and applicable to people on all different rungs of the ladder of spiritual growth.

This aspect of the Torah’s breadth of applicability is of primary concern to Rambam, who places great emphasis on the ability of the Torah to be relevant to the entire nation. For this reason, he explains, the Torah adopts a style of depicting God through the extensive use of anthropomorphism that, if taken literally, is not merely inaccurate but actually blasphemous. Rambam justifies this practice by invoking the maxim dibrah Torah belashon bnei adam — that the Torah ‘’talks in the language of man’’ in order to ensure that God’s existence is fully accepted and understood, even by people whose minds are equipped to relate only to physical existence rather than metaphysical spirituality. The Torah therefore describes God in human terms, portraying Him as moving, speaking and standing — activities which are truly applicable only to physical beings. The use of such terms implies that God’s actions are governed by the same physical limitations as man; they are therefore blasphemous when applied to God.

While the Torah employs anthropomorphic terminology when describing God and His actions, the Targum plays the crucial role of indicating to readers that anthropomorphic descriptions are not to be understood literally. Rambam writes glowingly of how Onkelos’ “translations” subtly departed from the Torah’s literal physical descriptions of God while doing so in a way that the masses were able to comprehend. Onkelos achieved this by, for example, referring in the context of God “moving” to God’s Shechinah (Presence) rather than God Himself, and by God “revealing Himself” rather than descending (a verb that depicts motion from one place to another). Rambam’s position is consistent with the great importance accorded to the Targum by the Gemara, which writes that the Targum Onkelos is an explanation of the Torah’s text which can be traced back to Ezra and which, the commentaries tell us, was part of the oral tradition which originated from Sinai.

Rambam’s position on anthropomorphism, specifically the notion that the Torah initially encourages heretical views as a necessary stepping-stone to achieving true beliefs – is one that many are liable to find shocking. A broader perspective of Rambam’s approach, however, allows one to appreciate that the Torah’s function is not to confront the Jewish People abruptly with a list of strict truths and harsh demands. Rather, it is a handbook which has been drafted in such a way as to coax and guide them towards correct conduct and beliefs (we examine certain examples of this phenomenon). The tension which arises from the need to incorporate within a single system both the ideal pursuit of divine truths and the common perception of religious piety is a central theme in Rambam’s thought, and underlines the Torah’s ability to cater simultaneously for multiple religious levels within the Jewish People.

The late Prof. Marvin Fox writes, in his highly-recommended Interpreting Maimonides, that it is this tension between which underlies the phenomenon of the “contradictions” which Rambam discusses in his introduction to Moreh Nevuchim. Responding to the Maimonidean theories advanced by academics such as Leo Strauss, who understood Rambam to be hinting that he had been forced to conceal his true radical views from the ‘masses’, Fox argues instead that they are indicative of Rambam’s religious realism. Rambam was acutely aware of the delicate balance which must be maintained between what he saw as the Torah’s ultimate goal of elevated intellectual connection to God on the one hand and the practical realities and imperfections of everyday religious engagement on the other.

In one example, he cites the claim of Maimonidean contradiction on the subject of prayer. Rambam teaches the philosophical truth that the only true praise of God is silence, since we are unable to formulate any accurate descriptions of God’s attributes. Yet he also codifies and upholds liturgical references to God being, among other things, “great and mighty”, tacitly recognising the need of the human spirit to express itself in words. Fox concludes that, in allowing both the denial of divine attributes and the duty to pray, Rambam “seems to affirm that there must be a place within a single system for the demands of both religious piety and philosophical truth”.

First posted on Facebook 7 June 2020, here.

Moshe's prophecy: an incomprehensible comprehension

At the conclusion of Parashat Beha’alotecha the Torah emphasises the gulf between ‘standard’ prophecy and the form received by Moshe. Prophecy in general, and the supremacy of Moshe’s perception of the divine word in particular, features strongly in all of Rambam’s primary works as he explores the precise nature of this ‘meeting of minds’ between the human and divine realm.

Rambam describes several unique features of Moshe’s prophecy, most importantly that he received God’s message directly (“panim e l panim”) rather than by means of an ‘angelic intermediary’. This direct intellectual encounter with the divine intellect granted Moshe a precise comprehension (“temunat Hashem yabit”) as opposed to the “riddles” and “dreams” that regular prophets were required to interpret. As we analyse in Judaism Reclaimed, Rambam understood the distinctive nature of Moshe’s prophecy – like all variations in prophetic ability – to be a result of his supremely balanced character traits. Each imbalanced trait is understood to create an additional “mechitzah” which impedes the prophet’s perception of God’s word. Moshe’s superior prophecy resulted from his success in perfecting all of his traits and thus removing all barriers to his comprehension.

While this explanation provides an understanding of Moshe’s distinct prophecy which is consistent with Rambam’s more rationalist natural approach to prophecy, it produces a number of further difficulties:

How are we to understand Rambam’s claim that Moshe had completely perfected his character traits? The biblical text openly discloses instances where Moshe appears to have fallen short – most notably in his anger with the people and in his lack of trust in God. Rabbinic commentaries typically expand upon these shortcomings, detailing their impact upon his ability to transmit God’s word (according to Vayikra Rabbah 13:1, three laws were hidden from Moshe, corresponding to three occasions on which he lost his temper). Can it be argued from Rambam’s perspective that these instances were all somehow justifiable? Or otherwise temporary aberrations that were not part of Moshe’s core personality? Perhaps the fact that he was “more humble than any man” meant that his personality could be completely negated and any imbalances therefore not encroach upon his intellect’s perception of God’s word?

A further question can be asked from within Rambam’s own writings. We read in Hilchot Teshuvah that all people have the ability to become “great like Moshe our teacher”. Does that mean that others can, in theory, reach his level of character perfection and, with it, prophetic perfection? If this is correct, then might the Torah’s statement -- that no prophet will arise like Moshe -- rely upon divine interference in (what Rambam regards to be) the broadly natural phenomenon of prophecy?

The discussion thus far has focused on the distinct nature of Moshe’s prophecy primarily from Rambam’s teachings in Mishneh Torahand various parts of his Commentary on the Mishnah. As is so often the case, the matter becomes significantly more complicated once we include the relevant passages of Moreh Nevuchim with its uniquely peculiar intrigue and dynamic.

Our previous post touched upon the subject of how deliberate contradictions within the Moreh are to be interpreted. The nature of Moshe’s prophecy offers another apparent example of this phenomenon, with Leo Strauss highlighting how Rambam first states that the Moreh will not discuss the nature of Moshe’s prophecy before making several considerable mentions of it in the subsequent chapters. Consistent with his broader approach to interpreting the Moreh, Strauss argues that this constitutes a ‘contradiction’ which indicates that Rambam did not truly subscribe to the ‘necessary religious belief’ of distinct Mosaic prophecy. According to this approach, the contradiction is a subtle esoteric signal to the sophisticated reader that in truth there is no superior ‘Mosaic’ religious teaching which can raise revelation over rational truth.

As in our previous post, Strauss’s theory is challenged by Prof. Marvin Fox in Interpreting Maimonides. Fox argues, among other points, that Rambam does not explain anything positive and substantial about the actual nature and functioning of Moshe’s unique prophecy. Rather, Rambam limits himself in these chapters to using Moshe’s ‘purely intellectual’ form of prophecy as a point of contrast to regular prophecy. Perhaps Rambam means to convey to his readers that – in keeping with other complex components of the Maimonidean system – we are forced to accept our inability to fathom the inner workings of Mosaic prophecy. We are unable to explain how Moshe’s unimpeded intellectual perception of divine truths is translated into precise biblical laws and words – including numerous anthropomorphic and other metaphors which appear to bear the hallmark of the imaginative faculties rather than the pure intellect. Ultimately, the most meaningful statements we can make about it are negative, such as that it does not involve the imagination or angelic intermediaries.

First posted to Facebook 11 June 2020, here.

Moshe's prophecy and a Maimonidean fascination

Prophecy – the interface and means through which information is conveyed from the divine to the human realm – lies at the very heart of Judaism and many other religions. As a phenomenon which is understood not to have existed for thousands of years, it nevertheless has remained a source of fascination and debate for religious scholars throughout the ages.

This is particularly true when we examine the writings of Rambam, for whom prophecy was a focal point in all of his major works. Indeed his apparent pre-occupation with the subject led some commentators to speculate as to whether prophecy was a particular Maimonidean pursuit – and perhaps that he even believed he may have achieved some degree of prophecy.

As Judaism Reclaimed examines in several of its chapters, prophecy for Rambam is not an isolated concept – a divine communication visited upon a person simply in order to instruct or rebuke. Rather it represents the crowning glory of long process of refining and perfecting all facets of the human personality and intellect.

This process also connects to the Maimonidean approach to providence. People who gradually improve and gain control over their characters traits – and refine their intellect – will find that their mind will be able to transcend the limitations of its physical associations. What starts off with flashes of intuition and knowledge from the spiritual realm, can develop into ru’ach hakodesh (holy spirit) and eventually to prophecy.

Crucially therefore, for Rambam, the degree of insight, understanding and clarity that a person is able to attain through prophecy is largely related to his or her own personal development and training.

Against this backdrop, God’s rebuke of Aharon and Miriam for their apparent slander of Moshe takes on particular significance. Rambam writes in Shemonah Perakim that Moshe had perfected his mind and character to such an extent that no barrier remained to impede his intellect's perception of God's will. This meant that Moshe perceived God on the level of "Peh el peh adaber bo" — a 'word-for-word' grasp of God's will. Through this principle we learn that Moshe received instruction from God without any ambiguity or need for interpretation. It is possible that only this degree of clarity as to God’s will could facilitate the communication of a set of precise laws – therefore no subsequent prophet can ever be permitted to revoke or manipulate the laws that Moshe has taught.

This can be contrasted with the regular mode of prophecy in which God makes Himself known to the prophet in a “vision” or “dream”, which allows for a certain degree of ambiguity and flexibility in its interpretation and application. Such flexibility is demonstrated in the Gemara’s account of an episode in which King Josiah decided to consult the prophetess Chuldah rather than the less popular Yirmiyah in the hope of receiving an interpretation of God's will that was more favourable and compassionate.

This fundamental principle – which is listed in Rambam’s list of 13 Principle of Faith – was made abundantly clear in this parashah, with its contrast between the quality of Moshe’s prophecy and that of his siblings. Despite the heights of religious piety and leadership displayed by Miriam and Aharon, the prophecy that they and any others will receive must be recognised as qualitatively distinct from that of Moshe.

First posted to Facebook 12 June 2022, here.