1 / 13

Incorporeality of Hashem

Incorporeality of Hashem. The Question of Rashi’s view. Corporeality. Physical body Emotions Rest/pain. R’ Natan Slifkin. Earlier views Rashi corpor. French Torah Scholars at time lean towards corporeality so why wouldn’t Rashi? Look at examples in Torah Rashi: actual hand

jerrybailey
Télécharger la présentation

Incorporeality of Hashem

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Incorporeality of Hashem The Question of Rashi’s view

  2. Corporeality • Physical body • Emotions • Rest/pain

  3. R’ NatanSlifkin

  4. Earlier views Rashicorpor • French Torah Scholars at time lean towards corporeality so why wouldn’t Rashi? • Look at examples in Torah • Rashi: actual hand • Rashi: In image of G-d (lit.) • Talmudic literalism for aggadah • Typical in Aschkenaz Medieval times • Ex. Adam animals

  5. Earlier views Rashiincorpor • Idea of metaphor • E.g Rest, roar like lion, pain/reconsideration of creation of man by Deluge  • “To direct the ear with that which it is able to hear” (לשון רש"י) • Not just avoids anthropomorphism of body but also emotion such as anger

  6. Slifkin’s evidences • Conspicuous absence • “direct ear” rel. to emotions but not form • If sometimes does say, then why not here? • Breath/exhaustion may be the problems but not the hand, nose etc. • Euphemisms rather than clarification • Moshe in the rock – respect from Onkelos re: protective intervention not the issue of hand. • Descent into Egypt/Babylon • Not bothered by ‘going down’ or movement but by idea of being harmed • Talmudic sources – Aggadah • Hanging Man (while dead- no spiritual) • God’s 2 eyes () • Decomposing Face • Loss of Image of Hashem

  7. Final Thought • “This essay should not be misunderstood: I do not believe it acceptable for a person to believe in a corporeal God. In a future essay, I hope to explain why even if Rashi maintained this view, it can still be rated as heretical to believe it today. Rashi said it, but we cannot.”

  8. R’ Saul Zucker

  9. Rebuttal of Evidence • Corporeality of French Rishonim: • “This objective is not met at all, insofar as these Torah scholars of France were merely labeled as corporealists by staunch Maimonideans, but did not themselves maintain that God has a body” (Based on R’ Shmuel of Marseille-predominant view-רב חכמי צרפת מגשימים) • Ramban letter to corporealists: • How many? • in response to critique of Rambam • 3 that are known in that area-100 years after Rashi’s passing---PREVALENCE? • Conspicuous absence: • argumentum ex silentio in academia and classified as fallacy • Some circum. true but the standard to qualify as proof or evidence is relatively high (must be almost 100% attributable to the particular reason, if can be attributed to other reason, falls apart (silence is selective- why this anthropomorphism? ) • He might suggest that it’s it to avoid a certain type of anthropomorphism (subject to toil/exhaustion) • Perhaps there ideas that are issues even as metaphors are unfitting for Hashem • hypothesis itself is proven false by a violation of his own stated rule. • Comments on right and left • Euphemisms: • “G-d had to” (by way of honor of Hashem) • “Chose to” Inconsistent (other times in Torah) • “Was compelled” putting omnipotent G-d into potent terms. • שאינו צריך • Should not- לא היה לו • does not need or did not need Why then only two examples? (Defend the honor of God re:enemies){vultures wings, palm of Hashem protective} • Descent into Egypt/Babylon • There was no need for God to actually descend to Bavel; however,He did so in order to teach the judges • There was no need for the Torah to employ the metaphor of God’s descent to Bavel • Talmudic sources – Aggadah • Hanging Man (while dead- no spiritual) • Mold of Hashem – not actual דמות (Way of explaining acc. To R’ Yeshayad’Trani) p.29 • God’s 2 eyes • With complete vision • Decomposing Face • metaphor for TzelemElokim overturned so too bed

  10. ד. אַתֶּם רְאִיתֶם אֲשֶׁר עָשִׂיתִי לְמִצְרָיִם וָאֶשָּׂא אֶתְכֶם עַל כַּנְפֵי נְשָׁרִים וָאָבִא אֶתְכֶם אֵלָי: ואשא אתכם : ואונקלוס תרגם: ואשא, ונטלית יתכון. כמו ואסיע אתכם, תיקן את הדבר דרך כבוד למעלה: כב וְהָיָה בַּעֲבֹר כְּבֹדִי וְשַׂמְתִּיךָ בְּנִקְרַת הַצּוּר וְשַׂכֹּתִי כַפִּי עָלֶיךָ עַד-עָבְרִי: ושכתי כפי -מכאן שנתנה רשות למחבלים לחבל. ותרגומו:ואגין במימרי. כינוי הוא לדרך כבוד של מעלה, שאינו צריך לסוכך עליו בכף ממש:

  11. R’ Zucker • Opening Heavens (you didn’t see any image) • Devarim 4:15לא ראיתם כל תמונה • Yeshaya 44:8-הֲלֹא מֵאָז הִשְׁמַעְתִּיךָ וְהִגַּדְתִּי, וְאַתֶּם עֵדָי • Right/Left • how can the spatial concepts of right and left be attributed whatsoever to God?” (incorporealist) • God walking • Literal on walking but says refers to ארון • 8/9 commentators • Explicitly and implicitly that Rashi was incorporealist

  12. Why did we do this? • Halacha/Hashkafah – Mesorah embedded • Rashi corp. – we rely on the Mesorah and on opinions of those who preceded us. • Bigger name the opinion matters • Changes way receive Mesorah • Perspectives (within Torah) that challenge your assumptions (presumptions)

  13. Sponsored By:

More Related