הלכות יסודי התורה פרק א

Lesson on Sefer HaMadda - Hilkhot Yesodei HaTorah: Chapter 1

Introduction: The Verse of Sefer HaMadda

Maggid Shiur:

We are now beginning to learn Sefer HaMadda, Yesodei HaTorah, Chapter 1. First of all, there is a verse. Does one say the verse? The Rambam has a custom that he begins each book with a verse. Besides beginning with the verses of the mitzvot, he begins with a verse that is more of a verse from Tehillim (Psalms), a kind of aggadic verse. They have such a tradition that for Sefer HaMadda the verse is from Tehillim:

> "Mah rav tuvkha asher tzafanta lirei'ekha tzidkatkha livnei adam" (Tehillim 31:20) [How abundant is Your goodness that You have stored away for those who fear You, Your righteousness for the upright of heart].

And I think the plain meaning is that the Rambam says in other places that for people who are God-fearing, they have Divine Providence (hashgacha pratit), they have more of God's kindness (chesed). Right? Could that be? Could be. So just as here in Sefer HaMadda he is going to teach Jews to become God-fearing, so "How abundant is Your goodness that You have stored away for those who fear You."

And "Your righteousness for the children of man" [in the transcript: "for the upright of heart"] I think is also because in Sefer HaMadda there is not only knowledge of God (yedi'at Hashem), but also the "upright of heart" - there are Hilkhot De'ot which deals with good character traits (midot tovot). That the Almighty gives kindness to those who fear God, they receive Divine Providence, and "Your righteousness for the children of man" is like "whoever has mercy on creatures, Heaven has mercy on him," so too there is a concept that one who is upright with other people receives uprightness in return. Very good.

Introduction to Hilkhot Yesodei HaTorah

There are ten mitzvot in Hilkhot Yesodei HaTorah, and we are going to skip the topic of the mitzvot because we have already fulfilled our obligation by learning the introduction where he did all of this. This is really copy-paste, I looked at the small differences each time, and we almost didn't get into the small differences that exist. So we need to start from the beginning.

And you should forgive me if I try to read through the first few halakhot, because one cannot do everything... The introduction to the first four chapters is that besides being Yesodei HaTorah (Foundations of the Torah), it is also "Sodot HaTorah" (Secrets of the Torah). So these are all things that, as the Rambam himself can say at the end of the second chapter and after the end of the fourth chapter: I don't understand one bit of what is written. But at least this much I think one can try - not to say false things, not to learn nonsense, to try to interpret the words that are written, and one can more or less understand the structure that the Rambam presents, what he does, what he doesn't say, what he intends to do.

Therefore I have organized things a bit here, it helps a bit, I asked about the margin notes he inserted, one can understand a bit. What is the order of things he says, and that's agreed upon. Yes. Was there disagreement? Yes, fine.

He begins, the first is about the mitzvah of "to know that there is a God." He said that this is the first positive commandment, "I am the Lord your God" (Anokhi Hashem Elokekha). Let's try to learn a bit, and we'll see if it fits. No, it will fit.

Halakha 1: The Foundation of Foundations and God's Existence

The Rambam, yes, it is built on mitzvot. All of the Rambam's works are built on mitzvot. But we have already learned several times, and we have learned inside, I say, two ways how the Rambam organizes his halakhot regarding the mitzvot:

1. One way is he begins with the mitzvah, "there is a positive commandment such and such."

2. Many times it goes the opposite way - first he describes the reality, or he describes the topic, and afterward he says how there is a mitzvah.

This is one of the places that begins the opposite way - it doesn't begin with the mitzvah, it begins with the fact, then he says that knowing this fact is a mitzvah. So presumably there is a reason why sometimes he does it one way and sometimes another.

Here it actually fits, because the fact exists before the mitzvah. When a person does a mitzvah, he has a command from a King. Here, the mitzvah is to know the reality. So he tells you the reality, and afterward he tells you to know it. It's understood that there is a problem of how there can be a mitzvah etc., but the Rambam has no problem with it, so we won't get into that. But it's certain that it's more important to understand - not the definition of the mitzvah that we want to understand - we want to understand the reality, then the Rambam says that knowing the reality is a mitzvah.

Belief and Knowledge

So this is also the way we can fulfill the mitzvah. Yes, we can only fulfill the mitzvah by being interested in how the world works, and arriving at the conclusion that the Almighty exists, and that the Almighty runs the world, etc. Then when one has arrived at the conclusion, one has fulfilled the mitzvah, yes?

I don't entirely agree, because it's certain... The Rambam never says this explicitly, but the earlier Rishonim, like Rav Saadia Gaon and others, said very clearly, and Chovot HaLevavot, that one can fulfill... There are two levels of fulfilling all these mitzvot, meaning all mitzvot of the type of knowledge of God:

* B'dieved (after the fact), meaning most people fulfill it by knowing what is written. One believes what is written in the Rambam, that there is a God, one believes the Rambam, and one fulfills the mitzvah l'khatchila (ideally) for a simple Jew.

* One who wants to be on a higher level, who wants to understand on his own, then he needs to investigate himself and truly understand.

But it's certain that one fulfills - in order to fulfill the mitzvah, not just to fulfill the mitzvah, but what is appropriate for most people is to simply believe what one is told, and perhaps to understand a bit the words that are said, but not much more.

When I say believe, I mean at minimum to conduct oneself in a way as if the assumptions are true. No, when I say believe, I don't mean so much to think deeply into the matters, just to conduct oneself in the proper way. That's not what I mean to say - I mean it literally, that if someone has trust, he is built on trust in a sage, like faith in the sages (emunat chakhamim). He imagines that the Rambam knew what he was talking about, just like in all halakhot - he doesn't say the Rambam's back-and-forth reasoning, he doesn't say who told him it's so, he just says the conclusion. So here too only the conclusion is written, it doesn't say how one arrives at the conclusion. True, in his other books he does bring the reasoning of how one arrives at the conclusion, but here he says the simple halakha, rulings.

One can say that Moreh Nevukhim (Guide for the Perplexed) is like the Gemara of Hilkhot De'ot perhaps. A bit, a bit, yes, one can perhaps say so.

Explanation of "First Being" and "Necessary Existence"

Okay, so the fact is as follows - first he begins to state the foundation:

> Yesod hayesodot v'amud hachokhmot [The foundation of foundations and the pillar of wisdoms]

The translation is simple - the foundation of everything. Every thing has a foundation, just as a building has a foundation it is built on, the world also has a foundation it is built on. One can also interpret "the foundations" - there are many levels of foundations, the foundation of all foundations. The same thing - all wisdoms have a foundation, "pillar" also means the same thing, like a foundation, the beam, the central pillar that everything stands on, wisdoms, all knowledge.

So it is, to know, lida, but the fact that... The Rambam intended that there are 13 Principles of Faith (Yud-Gimmel Ikkarim), it appears so. Yes, because he intended it, no doubt at all, because he intended it. But this is already a hint, this is just for beauty. The Rambam couldn't be against the 13 Principles, because he knew he had 13 Principles. It's nice, because this way it turns out that the first piece is "to know the 13 Principles." Yes, that is the mitzvah of the... that is why he interpreted it this way.

But what does one need to know? What is the foundation of everything? It is as follows:

> Sheyesh sham matzui rishon [that there is a First Being there]

Here a first existing thing. "First" we don't mean here in time, rather we mean first in the order of causation, meaning He is the cause that caused all other things, this is the explanation. "Rishon" (first), the meaning of the word rishon is actually what is written here:

> V'hu mamtzi kol nimtza [and He brings into existence every existing thing]

That means "mamtzi" - there is a thing that exists, that truly exists. The first thing - this is a second matter in meaning - is dependent, is about a second thing. A table for example exists, it can be here because there is a floor underneath that holds it, it's not the first thing. So too all things in the world have a reason, they are not the first thing, they don't make themselves, they don't exist because of themselves, and besides this there is the first thing from which all things come, therefore He is the first.

Consequently he derives:

> V'khol hanimtza'im min shamayim... [and all existing things from heaven...]

[Note: Here there is a piece about the textual variants in the end of this halakha]

That the end section has the original ending, and at some point everything got patched into the end section and the divisions, and it makes it very hard to understand, especially such pieces.

I think that when one says "true," it means like one says, ah... what is the true meaning of a person? A person is not... a person is an alarm clock, and that doesn't make him a person. What makes him a person is the intellect within him, etc. If something is an existence, what makes the Almighty be the Almighty is that He is the First Being, not all other types of attributes one can say, or actions, etc.

Now, it turns out, what does this mean? The first four lines of the end section are very simple, but most people don't grasp it. What does it mean that He is the first? What is the meaning of the word "first"? Not that He was before all things - that is actually perhaps true, but that's not what it means.

What does it mean that He is the first? It means a simple thing. If one were to say in Yiddish, take away... if there would be nothing... let me not fight about the Rambam's words, sorry. If He wouldn't exist, nothing would exist. On the other hand, everything can exist without Him existing... sorry, on the other hand, everything cannot exist without Him. Does that fit? All other things can either exist or not exist. The Almighty cannot not exist. That's the thing. Because if the Almighty doesn't exist, nothing exists. Very good.

There is another way of saying the same thing, which is called in Hebrew "mechuyav hametzius" (necessary existence). This term doesn't appear here. But the Rambam says it in another, somewhat more complicated way and somewhat simpler way. He says, imagine that nothing exists - the Almighty still exists. Imagine that the Almighty doesn't exist - nothing exists. That is the meaning of "First Being and all existing things exist from the truth of His existence." Yes?

The Rambam says:

> V'im ya'aleh al hada'at shehu eino matzui, ein davar acher yakhol l'himatzei [And if it should enter the mind that He does not exist, no other thing could exist].

Nothing can exist. Why? Because we said, He makes all other things exist. If He doesn't exist, nothing exists.

And the same thing but reversed:

> V'im ya'aleh al hada'at she'ein kol hanimtza'im milvado metzuyim [And if it should enter the mind that all existing things aside from Him do not exist]

If everything else would not exist, nothing changes in Him.

> Hu levado yihyeh matzui, v'lo yibatel hu l'vitulam [He alone would exist, and He would not cease because of their cessation].

He won't cease to exist because they cease to exist, because they need Him, and He doesn't need them. He derives:

> Shekol hanimtza'im tzrikhim lo [For all existing things need Him]

for their existence,

> V'hu barukh hu eino tzarikh lahem, v'lo l'echad mehem [and He, blessed be He, does not need them, nor any one of them]

in a particular way. He doesn't need any of them, not all of them together, not any one of them. All other things, besides the Almighty, happen to exist, but they don't have to exist. Whereas the Almighty is the most basic existence itself, He is the existence, the reality itself. Not, God forbid, do I mean the existence itself - He doesn't exist because of something else. About this he says very simply, what you're saying is a way of saying it, but most of the time people don't understand what you mean.

Lesson on Sefer HaMadda - Hilkhot Yesodei HaTorah - Chapter 1 (Continued)

Topic of the Lesson: The Truth of the Creator's Existence and the Movement of the Celestial Sphere

Sources: Rambam Hilkhot Yesodei HaTorah, Chapter 1, Halakhot 3-5

---

The Truth of God's Existence (Halakhot 3-4)

Maggid Shiur:

In order for the Almighty to exist, He doesn't need something else. He only needs Himself to exist, so to speak. Consequently, the Rambam says:

"V'lefikhakh ein amitato k'amitat she'ar hanimtza'im" [Therefore His truth is not like the truth of other existing things]

The truthfulness of the Almighty is not like all other things. That means, all things exist truly, but not entirely truly.

What does "truly" mean here as a word? "Truly exist" you might think means to exist because of oneself, exists by itself.

Just as I can say for example, I know, a "true sage" is one who is himself a sage. If someone needs to ask Google everything - he perhaps has an aspect of wisdom, you can't call him that directly, but he is not himself a sage, he needs to ask Google for his wisdom.

The same thing applies regarding existence. A thing that exists truly means they can exist by themselves. If something borrows its existence, it receives its existence from something else, it exists - not that it doesn't exist - but not as truly as the one who exists simply because of himself, from his own essence. Does that fit?

Consequently, the truthfulness of the Almighty's existence - one can say that the Almighty is the only thing that exists, because all other things, so to speak, they "appear" to exist. They appear, they really exist. But the manner in which they exist is only because something exists that makes them exist. They are recipients.

So the Almighty is the true existence without which nothing can be, and the Almighty doesn't need to receive His existence from another. Consequently He truly exists.

All other things are in a certain sense "fake" existence. "Fake" only means to say "received" - that's what the word "fake" existence means. It doesn't mean it doesn't really exist - it really exists - but it doesn't have within itself the existence. Its existence is borrowed, so to speak, it is received from the Almighty.

About this the Rambam says:

"Hu she'amar hanavi" [This is what the prophet said]

About this the prophet Jeremiah says:

"V'Hashem Elokim emet" [And the Lord God is truth]

The Almighty is truth. That means the Almighty is truth - "shehu levado hu ha'emet" [that He alone is the truth]. That He alone is truth. "V'ein l'acher emet ka'amitato" [And nothing else has truth like His truth]. Nothing else is so true. In other words, nothing else exists as truly as the Almighty.

Yes, one could have interpreted "nothing else is also the truth," or something like that, that the Almighty is indeed truth. No, the Rambam interprets that the Almighty alone is *more* true than everything else, because all other things need to come to Him.

Like someone who has money, yes? He says "I have money." Who truly has money? The wealthy person, the one who has the source of the money. The one who received his money also has money in his pocket, he's not a poor person, he has money, but he doesn't have *real* money. Why doesn't he have real money? Because he didn't make it himself, he needs to come to the other person for his money.

This is the concept regarding existence - that the Almighty is the only one who truly exists. You can say like the person has money "by chance," and the other one has money "in reality," so to speak. I can call it that way. All other things exist by chance, because the Almighty wanted them to exist, or because He made them. One can say it that way, but that's more complicated. I'm trying to stick to the simple way.

Note: The Rambam's Style - Depth in Simplicity

Maggid Shiur:

The Rambam worked very hard here. All the words you're saying are true words that are said in the Gemara; the term "mechuyav hametzius" (necessary existence) appears, the term "matzui mitzad atzmo" (existing from its own essence) appears. All these expressions are shorter words, but it's less simple to know what he's saying.

Here the Rambam tried very hard to say all these very deep things with simple words that one can say in cheder (elementary school). All these things you said, I think one can say in cheder, everyone understands: the Almighty needs nothing, everything needs the Almighty, the Almighty is the only thing that truly exists. All these things are simple to understand, one doesn't need to be too deep. It's very deep, but it's said here in very simple words that one can say.

The Rambam says, the same word that is written "and Hashem Elokim is truth"... also when it's written in the Torah, Moshe Rabbeinu already said:

"Ein od milvado" (There is none besides Him)

What does "ein od milvado" mean? Not that there's nothing else at all, that nothing else exists. It doesn't mean "truly nothing else exists at all."

"That is to say, there is no true existence besides Him like Him"

There is nothing like Him. Why? Because the main difference between the Almighty and all other things is this: the Almighty is the only thing that exists of itself, all other things exist because of Him.

So, this is the first fact about the existence of the Almighty. The Rambam doesn't say the word "Almighty," he says "matzui" (Existent One). He doesn't even say any word for Him. A thing that exists, but it exists before all other things. That all other things exist because of Him, He doesn't exist because of them.

Precision in the Rambam's Language: "And He, Blessed Be He"

Student:

How many times [does he say] "Baruch Hu" (Blessed Be He)? Yes, he gives Him a blessing. But "Baruch Hu" is not a name. He should be blessed. Interesting indeed. "Baruch Hu" is usually said about a name or something like that. I don't know, maybe this is already minor, "vehu Baruch Hu," like "yitbarach" (may He be blessed). Yes, interesting.

Maggid Shiur:

Now, the Rambam was very particular about this exact wording. I never noticed this "vehu Baruch Hu" that you noticed. But the Rambam is very particular, he says in his writings, when he mentions the Almighty he always says "yitaleh" (may He be exalted) or "yitbarach" (may He be blessed). He mentions the Almighty, but he always says some praise. It's as if he says it with a title and the like.

We also say this way. We say "for all the Names" or "for all the mitzvos." When we say... no, a person says the whole question of "mentioning God's name in vain," but if one says "yishtabach" (may He be praised), but when a Jew says "Hashem yitbarach" or "HaKadosh Baruch Hu" (the Holy One, Blessed Be He), there's already a blessing contained in it, it's not a... okay.

The Holy One, Blessed Be He, as the Mover of the Sphere (Halacha 5)

Maggid Shiur:

Now, all this is about the Almighty Himself. Now what does the Almighty do? What does the Almighty do? You ask a question, what does He do? So it's like this:

"This Existent One"

The Existent One, He has a job. I'm saying this in a very simple way. He has a job. What is His job?

"He is the God of the world"

He is the God of the world.

"Master of all the earth"

He is the Master of the entire world. That is His job. And how does He do this job? How is it evident that the Almighty is the "God of the world"?

"And He is the one who moves the sphere"

He turns, He moves the sphere. The sphere, the meaning that the Rambam understood was...

Student:

I want to ask you, what does the word "adon" (master) or "eloah" (god) mean? I think it means the highest.

Maggid Shiur:

No, no, I'm telling you the meaning is the meaning. I'm telling you, the meaning is what it says now. The meaning is what it says now. "Manhig" (leader) – the one who leads. But how does the Almighty lead? What does it mean that He leads? It means what it says "vehu" (and He). And "vehu" is the meaning of this.

What is the meaning of Him being "Master of all the earth"? It's very good that He is the Master. But what does it mean that He is the Master? Wait, the meaning is the meaning, but what does it mean? Maybe the meaning of "Master" means that He is the highest, that He is the highest, is that sure? No, it means that He leads, not just simply that He is the highest.

For example, another rabbi in my community is not the master. He is a great master, but he is not "Master of all the earth." "Master of all the earth" means that He has some connection, He does something to them, right? Not just that He is the greatest thing, He is also something that does something to them, He has some relationship to them.

And how does the Almighty lead the world? What does it mean that the Almighty is "the God of the world, Master of all the earth"? It means like this. The Rambam understood, and we will see explicitly in the third chapter I think, that the entire world is one great circle. It's very simple to see, we are in the middle, and everything revolves around and around. There is more than one sphere, but in the end everything comes to one huge circle, a sphere, a ball. The entire world is one huge ball, and the ball constantly revolves, and through this revolving the rest of the world revolves. This is the basic workings of the world that the Rambam understood.

And this revolving causes there to be energy. "Energy" is a funny word that the Rambam didn't hear of, but it causes movements, it causes everything else to move, and this is everything in the world. We see this in the second chapter and in other places, but the Rambam says it many times, you know what you mean. Today's science doesn't teach this way, so one might need to reinterpret it or not, but this is according to what the Rambam said.

Now, this constantly revolves. You know, you see every day the sun comes up, this is because the sphere revolves. So who revolves it? The Almighty is the Mover, He is the one who moves the sphere. How does He move it?

"With a power that has no end, with a power that has no cessation"

This means, the Almighty has a power, an infinite power that ends... let's not say words that aren't written here. A power that doesn't end, with this it revolves.

In other words, why? The Rambam says:

"For the sphere constantly revolves"

We see that it constantly revolves, it never stops revolving. If it never stops revolving, it means that the power that revolves it is not just a small power, a limited power. Like I have a limited power. Everything in the world is a power. I can push, I can move things, I can live. I only live seventy years, I don't live forever. Presumably the sphere revolves forever. As long as we see it, we see that it revolves. Therefore the one who revolves it, He must revolve it with a power that has no end, a power that has no limit, that it revolves constantly, constantly, simply without end.

"And it is impossible for it to revolve without a mover"

A thing cannot revolve by itself. This is apparently simple. Therefore, everything we see here that revolves, there is something that revolves it, yes? Until we come to the first mover, which is the sphere. It doesn't revolve by itself. Who revolves it?

"And He, Blessed Be He"

Again, the Blessed One revolves it.

"He is the mover"

He revolves it.

"Without hand or body"

Very important to understand, the Almighty revolving it doesn't mean that the Almighty, so to speak, has a body, God forbid, because we will see in a minute, He has no body. He is not the mover, it says there He revolves, in other words, He is not the mover the way I revolve something. When I revolve something, I revolve with it, right? I push it, I push my hand, I push myself along. The Almighty pushes it, and He doesn't push Himself along. He is not affected by what He revolves. But somehow, how He says here not, we don't understand it, but somehow the Almighty made it revolve forever.

"Without hand or body" also says that it's a power without end, because a hand or a body has an end. Right, that is the proof. We will go see this soon, I think.

And also the second thing, the Almighty moves the sphere with power, the result is that the sphere is not the first existent, the most important existent. Therefore it must be that the one who is the first existent is the one who moves with power.

Student:

Who says it's not the most important? Because it can revolve by itself.

Maggid Shiur:

No, I'm saying, once we know that the sphere is not the first existent... How do we know this? With the previous premises that we said earlier that the Almighty is the main existent that nothing can exist without Him. The Rambam didn't bring the proof here. I'm telling you how we know, because the sphere itself does have an end. If the sphere would have been the first existent, it could perhaps revolve by itself. The old theory of motion, it doesn't need to have an end. But the sphere exists. The Rambam here innovates that the sphere has an end, and you can see that it's a contradiction. But the conclusion is that the power, a mover a... sphere has no end, it constantly revolves, there must be a power for this, and as you say, the power must not be a body.

Questions and Answers: Eternity of the World and Creation

Student:

So the fact that the sphere revolves also has to do with the fact that it once began? One already needs to believe in creation in order to know this?

Maggid Shiur:

They don't reveal the secret, I don't want to reveal the secret, let's leave it like this. This is how it stands, it constantly revolves, it revolves more than without end, and therefore there must be a mover that revolves it.

Shiur on Sefer HaMada: Hilchos Yesodei HaTorah - Chapter 1 (Continued)

Topic of the Shiur: The Mitzvos of Knowing Hashem and His Unity, and Negation of Corporeality

Maggid Shiur:

But the sphere revolving has nothing to do with the fact that it once began, one needs to believe in creation in order to know this. I don't want to reveal the secret, let's leave it like this. This is how it stands, it constantly revolves, it revolves more than without end, and therefore it must be that the Almighty revolves it, because it cannot be that it revolves by itself.

And if you want, this is not for great philosophers, but in one compound the Rambam said that the spiritual view goes with the premise of kadmus ha'olam (eternity of the world). Whoever knows what this means can know, I'm not going further.

Halacha 5: The Mitzvah of Knowing Hashem and the Prohibition of Idolatry

Maggid Shiur:

Now, until here is the fact, until here one knows that the Almighty exists, and that the Almighty leads the world. Simply, a created being leads the sphere in the Rambam's language, in the Rambam's science.

Now the Rambam concludes, here we come to the mitzvah: And knowing this matter is a positive commandment, to know the whole thing you just said, that there is a first existent of all the world, is a positive commandment, as it says "I am Hashem your God" (Shemos 20:2). This is the meaning of "I am Hashem your God," to know that there is a first existent who leads the world, He is eternally there.

Now, besides this, just as there is a positive commandment to know, there is also a negative commandment not to know. The Rambam says: And anyone who entertains the thought, whoever thinks, that there is another god besides this one — it's interesting, he doesn't say whoever thinks there is no God, he says whoever thinks there is another god — transgresses a negative commandment, he transgresses a negative commandment, as it says "You shall have no other gods before Me" (Shemos 20:2).

Besides the fact that he transgresses a negative commandment, it's much worse than that, because there are many negative commandments in the world, but he is a denier of the fundamental principle. What does "denier of the fundamental principle" mean? For this is the great fundamental principle upon which everything depends. We learned the "foundation of foundations," the foundation — foundation and principle are the same thing — the root, the foundation, the principle upon which everything depends, is the existence of God, and that no other thing is a god.

This means, if someone thinks that something else is the god, for example he says that the sphere is a god, he entertains the thought that there is another god, not that there is no God. The first existent doesn't exist [according to his view], the first God is not the God. Therefore, "You shall have no other gods" is the exact opposite of "I am Hashem your God," according to how the Rambam understands. This is like he said earlier "and if one would think," and he says "God forbid if one would think."

Questions and Answers: The Definition of "Entertaining a Thought"

Student:

Ah, good. So the "and if one would think" from earlier is also transgressing "I am Hashem your God"?

Maggid Shiur:

No, earlier he means to say if someone would entertain the thought, that is a hypothetical. There he means to say if it could be, he only wants to explain the relationship between the world and the Almighty.

Student:

I want to say that this is somewhat a proof that the transgression is not in entertaining the thought, but in making the conclusion from that thought.

Maggid Shiur:

No, I already told you, we already discussed last time, that when it says here "entertains the thought," he means to say that one cannot truly think this way, it's only someone who entertains the thought.

Halacha 6: The Mitzvah of the Unity of Hashem

Maggid Shiur:

Okay. Done. Until here are the laws of the existence of Hashem, the mitzvah of "I am" and know what follows from it. Now we will learn both the fact and the mitzvah. First will be the same order: first he will say the fact, then he will say the mitzvah, which mitzvah one fulfills by knowing the fact.

Student:

No, actually, until here we learned until halacha 5, one fulfilled the mitzvah. The Rambam said that it exists. Now he says, you know that until now you were engaged in the mitzvah of knowing Hashem, of "I am Hashem your God." You already fulfilled the mitzvah of "I am." And now we will learn the unity, the second mitzvah, that the Creator is only one.

Maggid Shiur:

In general, I'm just saying that the order goes like I... now he did the mitzvah.

Student:

When did one do the mitzvah? Now.

Maggid Shiur:

Okay, now we will learn the second thing, which is also a mitzvah.

No, it's interesting. Indeed, a person cannot say "I'm now going to fulfill 'I am Hashem your God,'" because one starts thinking, and maybe you won't arrive at the correct thought. Only when one has thought and arrived at the correct thought, then one has succeeded and arrived at "I am Hashem your God." The Rambam doesn't just make it, he doesn't say "investigation" here, he says "the truth of the matter." But now that you think this, is the mitzvah the thinking, or the believing, the knowing, whatever you want to call it.

Now, it's like this, one must know: know — it doesn't say "know" here, but that's what it means. The God we just spoke about, this God is one. What does it mean that He is one? It means two things. It means He is not two and not more, that means He is not two bodies, as the Rambam says. There is no other god.

He says that the God is not two and not more than two, but one, only one, whose unity is unlike any of the unities that exist in the world. We know that many things are one. For example, there is one person, or there is one species of man, there is one humanity, because all people are one in a way, because all are people. There is one species of man. These are the two types of unity that we know. The Almighty however is not one of these ways. He is one whose unity is unlike any of the unities that exist in the world.

What types of unities exist in the world? Two types of unities, as it says here.

1. There is one like a species, a type of thing, that includes many individuals. That means a species. For example, there is one line in the world. There is one line. There are many lines, but there is one type of line, there is one definition of a line, that all lines are one, yes? But the species is not simple, it truly includes many ones, many specific lines, many individual lines.

2. Ah, to say one line, one person, or one stone. One stone, one person, one piece of wood, is apparently yes one, or not? No, one like a body that is divided into its parts and its ends. Every body can be divided. In other words, there is the right side of it, and there is the left side of it. When one says one person, we have decided to look at it as one. One can decide to look at it as three hundred limbs and not put together, and one can divide it. One hasn't decided that it's not singular, it's true that it's one. One hasn't decided that one can decide. It's correct.

Why does the Rambam say? He doesn't say what you say, that one can make it just random. It's true that it's one body. He says that this one is not such an absolute one, because we look, we speak of it as one, because it's one in one way, but in another way it's not one. It's a different type of one. It's a type of unity, it's one, it's one person, but it's not the total one.

The thing that you look at from the limbs, you can say that it divides itself. Every thing, every physical object has two sides, right? It's already two, right? Every thing that is a body has a right side and a left side, and if not, it doesn't have a body. It's already two. Therefore, every physical object in the world is not one. Rather, the Almighty is a unity such that there is no other unity like it in the world. In the world, in the created world, or at least from the physical bodies — perhaps there are things that are not bodies, but in the world of bodies there is no such kind of unity like the unity of the Almighty. This is the meaning that unity means simple, He is indeed simple, He is not made of two things. Even not, even a body one can say that a piece of wood is only one wood that has two sides. The Almighty is not made of two sides, He is a thing that is completely one, a simple thing, a simple matter.

Halacha 7: Proof of Unity and Negation of Corporeality

Maggid Shiur:

Now the Rambam is going to say like a proof, it's very interesting. He holds that one needs to know, one doesn't fulfill the mitzvah of unity unless one understands to contemplate this, one can learn a few years or more than a few years, but he tries to explain what is the connection, from where does one arrive that the Almighty is one? What is the matter that the Almighty is one, or that there is only one?

The Rambam says thus: If there were many gods, "if there were many deities," the gods would be many, "they would be bodies and physical forms." A very interesting chiddush. If there were more than one God, they would have had to have a body. Why? Because it would have to distinguish between the multiple ones. Very good. "Because things that are equal in their existence are not separated from each other except through accidents that occur in bodies and physical forms."

There are indeed things that are two, but they are the same. Think about it, if there were two gods, they would be equal in their existence, they are both the same thing, right? Like two cows, they are both the same existence, the same type of thing. What makes them two? Because they are two. They are two bodies, right? If there were two gods, they would have needed to have a body, some body, because things that are equal are not separated from each other except through accidents that occur in bodies and physical forms. Things that happen, that means accidents. Only with being... What does a body mean? A body is in one place, a body is this big, the one who is not this big is not the same one.

Now, remember, we said earlier that the Almighty runs the world, He has a power without end. "And if the Creator were a body and physical form," if the God were... yes, good, the God would be a Creator, a body — physical form means the same thing as a body, it's a double expression — then "He would have an end and limit," He would have had an end. Why? "Because it is impossible for a body to have no end." A body must have an end, it's not possible to be a body that is endless. The proof for this is in Moreh Nevuchim Part 2, but it's quite simple, you can't imagine it. Because yes, He would have filled everything, there couldn't be...

If He were a body and He were unlimited, nothing could exist. A body would have eaten up everything.

But this is what he says, he says that a body cannot be endless. A physical thing is a limited thing, it cannot be. There is a reason why it cannot be, but it cannot be. It's not simple what would have been, there would have been one end, there would have been one end. It cannot be, not even one can be, it's not correct. Not even one can be. A body is a thing that has a limit, it's a limited thing, there cannot be a body without an end.

Therefore, it's simply, and anything that has a limit has limited power. A thing that is itself a thing that has an end, cannot do something, cannot... power means the total of what it can do, cannot work without an end, right? Like a battery, the battery is this big, it can work for two hours. Not that a battery that is this big can work this much energy, this much ability to work that it can work for this much.

Now, remember, for and our God, blessed be His name, our God, it spells out, it spells out, stop. Since His power has no end and has no cessation. Yes, the Almighty's power is not finite. As you know, we are for the sphere revolves constantly, the world turns constantly. His power is not the power of a body, it must be that the Almighty's power is not a power that depends on a body, but it is an infinite power.

Questions and Answers: Infinite Power and Body

Student:

"Since it has no end" means in time or like in space?

Maggid Shiur:

No, it doesn't mean in time and not in space. It means the concept. Not time and not space.

Student:

No, but he says "revolves constantly," meaning eternally in time.

Maggid Shiur:

Meaning eternally in time, yes.

Student:

But why does one need for this to have "no end" like in space?

Maggid Shiur:

I told you my crude analogy, crude upon crude, of a battery. If you have here a thing that has a battery, let the battery be as big as you want, but not unlimited, it cannot power a machine forever. It can for two years, for ten years, for a thousand years, but not forever.

Student:

"No end" in terms of time, but...

Maggid Shiur:

I'm not talking about the question. A battery that has an end cannot work forever, true?

Student:

If it's a battery that...

Maggid Shiur:

You need to have a power from outside.

How did this come about? That it cannot work forever. If it runs, the world turns forever, it must be that it is built on something that is a power that has no end. That power means my uniqueness. Means that the power has no end, means that it is only one. Therefore, if it is a power that has no end, it doesn't fit into a body. It must be a power that is not from a body. It doesn't fit into such a small vessel. What is a proof of the power of the spheres?

Sefer HaMadda - Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah

Chapter 1: The Commandments of God's Existence and Unity (Continued)

Topic of the Lesson: Negation of Corporeality and Explanation of Anthropomorphism in Scripture

---

Explanation of the Concept "One" and Negation of Corporeality

Student: But I thought that the Torah says that the Almighty has one body. The Rambam says that it says "one," and a body is not one. People always ask a question: how does it say? The Rambam is going to say the opposite soon. But "one" certainly refers to one body, because a body is not one, and one is one body. This is the mitzvah that is written.

Rabbi: Now the Rambam is going to answer when you interrupt him that it says differently in the verses. He's going to answer that the Almighty doesn't have a body.

Oh, wait a minute, it says "one," and they claimed that "one" is a body? You have a mistake. Someone will think that it is... Oh, I'm convinced that the Almighty doesn't have a body. So, okay. So he wants first to bring a proof from verses. They brought "Shema Yisrael," but "Shema Yisrael" still says that He is not a body. It only says one, which is true, according to the Rambam it necessarily means He is not a body. But he wants to bring verses also to understand that He is without a body.

---

Halacha 9: Proofs from Scripture that He is Not a Body

The Rambam says: Behold it is explicit in the Torah and in the Prophets that He, may He be exalted, is not a body or physical form.

It says thus, in the Torah there are two verses from the Torah and one verse from the Prophets he is going to bring.

[1. The Proof from His Presence Everywhere]

As it says: "For the Lord He is God in the heavens above and on the earth below" [Deuteronomy 4:39].

If He were a body, He couldn't be in the heavens and on the earth at the same time. A body is in one place. Even if it's a very large body. He says "the Lord He is God in the heavens above and on the earth below."

If someone agrees that the interpretation should say this, I understand that it's good. But the second one... what can he say? That He is the greatest power? He is a very great power, He rules in the heavens and on the earth. He wants it to be at the same time. He agrees. In the same way, at the same time, He should be in two places – a body cannot do that.

Also the "one," "the Lord our God, the Lord is one," the same God, and He should be in two places. This is the tzimtzum that we said earlier, that He is simple, He doesn't have parts. Or to say, if He is one, He is not in any place. He is not in the heavens and not on the earth, because He is not in any place. What does His power mean? "In the heavens above," that He gives existence to the heavens and to the earth.

[2. The Proof from the Giving of the Torah at Sinai]

And it says: This is a simple verse. "For you did not see any form" [Deuteronomy 4:15], it says in Va'etchanan. When we were by the Almighty we didn't see any picture.

So it comes out, "form" apparently means not just a picture, it means a form, a thing that has a size, a shape.

[3. The Proof from the Lack of Comparison]

And it says: "To whom will you liken Me and I will be equal" [Isaiah 40:25]. Yes, Isaiah the prophet says in the second haftarah of Shabbat Nachamu, and the truth is, to whom can you compare Me and I will be equal?

Yes, the Rambam says, he says that the Almighty is not equal. Every thing is equal, every thing in the world is equal. One can make some equation. Every thing, at least the most basic way, all things in the world are equal in that they are all bodies. And if He were a body, if He were a body, He would be similar to other bodies. He would be equal. It could be the biggest body, the most beautiful, the brightest, but He is equal in that He is a body.

And now that the Almighty is the One who brings all existence into being, and He is not equal to anything, because you are an existence and I am an existence, there is no equation.

Student: [Someone asked that it's equal that both are an existence, both exist?]

Rabbi: But it's not equal because it's a different type of existence, a higher existence. That is written in verses in Isaiah, but here it doesn't say it. Here it goes a bit more simply that He is not a body.

---

Halacha 10: Explanation of Anthropomorphism in Scripture ("The Torah Speaks in Human Language")

Now the Rambam is going to ask the question: If so, what is this that is said in the Torah... [And if so, what does it come to teach us?]

Student: I want to interject a bit. I want to say, "and if so, yes, only with a question." No, I want to, because I won't be able to be quiet, I'll have to speak up. First I want to say my interpretation, if you agree you can say. I want to try to explain here.

Rabbi: Behold... it says in the Torah various expressions that it looks like the Almighty has a body:

* It says "and under His feet" [Exodus 24:10] – He has feet.

* It says "written with the finger of God" [Exodus 31:18] – He has fingers.

* It says "the hand of God" [Exodus 9:3] – He has a hand.

* It says "the eyes of God" [Genesis 6:8] – He has eyes.

* It says "the ears of God" [Numbers 11:1] – He has ears.

* "And similar things."

The Rambam says thus: Everything is according to the understanding of human beings, who only recognize bodies, and the Torah speaks in human language.

I think the meaning of this is: When one tells a person that the Almighty exists, what does he think? A person has never thought that a thing exists without being a body. Or it could be not yet negating from this, but first even existence. One means, one tells a person that the Almighty exists – the way of speaking to a person, in human language, a simple person who doesn't understand existence without a body, and he hasn't yet learned any Rambam – one needs to tell him that He exists that He is a person, that He has hands and feet, and not that He doesn't exist.

The Rambam says this explicitly in the Moreh [Nevuchim]. I didn't make up this approach. I say this because I knew you were going to argue with me.

When he says that He exists without a body, when he wants to explain the matters, when he wants to say for example that the Almighty is a king, he needs to say that He has a throne. This is the way the Torah speaks.

Student: I want to say, I know that I knew you were going to say this. But it's not correct. It says explicitly in Moreh Nevuchim, and this is true. It says explicitly in Moreh Nevuchim, and this is true. But most people don't understand that "one" means one itself. Only one who is blinded, he understands it.

Rabbi: So first of all, to speak to people, a simple person, one speaks to him the language of body. He doesn't know what another language is. Therefore, this is the only way one can speak to him about the Almighty.

Besides this he is right, that every thing means something. One, Hashem is a hint to the Almighty's providence and the like. This is also not in a body. The Almighty runs the sphere without a hand and without a body. It's not true that the Almighty has a finger with which He runs the world. He runs the world without a finger. But the explanation of the matters is difficult. How are you going to explain to a person? A person, the Almighty punishes – clearly, a person imagines, He pushes it with a hand. Okay, He pushes it with His hand. This is how one speaks the explanation of the matters.

But truly, as he says, "and everything is metaphors" [in all these acquisitions], as it says: "If I sharpen My flashing sword" [Deuteronomy 32:41], there when the Almighty says rebuke, there it's clear, that everyone understands, even the layman, that it's not because the Almighty is going to kill with a sword. "Does He have a sword and does He kill with a sword?", rather it's a parable, it's a parable for punishments that the Almighty makes. How it plays out, there are various ways. And only there does one understand that it's a parable.

But it's such a general rule that it's a parable everywhere, where He wants to explain something and He uses corporeal language, it's a parable.

---

Halacha 11: Explanation of Contradictory Prophetic Visions

A proof for this matter, a proof to this, that what everything says in body doesn't mean an actual body, but a parable or a metaphor.

A proof for this matter, that one prophet says, one prophet, the prophet Daniel, says, that he saw the Holy One, Blessed be He, he saw the Almighty, and he saw that "His garment was white as snow" [Daniel 7:9], He is dressed like white snow.

And another [and another], another prophet, Isaiah, saw the Almighty, and He is "why... red of garment" [Isaiah 63:2, 1], like He goes with red garments, He comes with red garments, yes, garments that are smeared with blood, "from Bozrah."

Is His face really so? [Is His face really so?] Is it then possible that He changed His garment? Perhaps He took off His garments in between? It says that He was wearing one garment. Okay, further, let's see.

And Moses our teacher himself, also, saw Him at the sea like a warrior waging war, and at Sinai like a prayer leader wrapped, as it says in the Midrashim. About these things are Midrashim, apparently, perhaps they are precise in the verses? Okay. "The Lord is a man of war" [Exodus 15:3]. Yes, in Rashi it says... ah, the "And the Lord passed before him and called" [Exodus 34:6]. Yes, that is the prayer leader... Sinai he doesn't mean, not the giving of the Torah at Sinai, he means at the cleft of the rock. Was the cleft of the rock in Sinai?

To say that He has no image or form [that He is not similar to a form], like all parables, is to say that by catching contradictory parables one shows that the parable is only a parable. If it would have always said only the same parable, one would have thought that the parable is the real thing. But because one catches sometimes such a parable, sometimes such a parable, one catches that it's only a parable.

Rather everything is in prophetic vision and in sight [and all this is in prophetic vision], this is only the way how one materializes abstract things, so that one should see them in prophetic vision. It's very clear, in short, good.

---

Summary: Three Approaches to Understanding Anthropomorphism

Earlier there already stood the three explanations why it says various things that the Almighty seemingly has a body:

1. First he already said "according to the understanding of human beings," that one speaks to a person the only language that he can understand. Just as you tell your baby, that the Almighty doesn't have a body he won't understand, he must imagine something.

2. Afterwards he says another thing that it's metaphors, as he brings his proof from "I calmed with my sword" [perhaps the intention is "I will return vengeance to my enemies" or "I will draw my sword"], that he means like His actions, everyone understands that the Almighty doesn't have a sword, it only means He kills you without a sword. When one says only a sword, it's by way of metaphor. This is the second interpretation.

3. And now he says a third interpretation.

Student: Won't you say that it's an expansion on "the Scripture speaks in human language"?

Rabbi: No, I didn't explain it. But it's a list, it could be an expansion, but it's another point. It could be you can fit it into everything, but it's another thing. But here it says even regarding seeing, even by the prophet himself one can see the opposite.

Now there's a third thing, "in the vision of prophecy" means that the prophet imagined, he saw an image, a vision, it indeed appeared that way. Sometimes he saw it this way, sometimes he saw it that way. But seeing was only in the vision of prophecy, it doesn't mean that the Almighty actually looks that way. This is how the Almighty shows the prophet for some reason, there's a deeper meaning in it, but the Almighty shows the prophet this way in order to teach him something, and the like. But it's not... this is a third interpretation. You understand? It's a third interpretation.

Student: If that's the case, the meaning is that the... it's not just a limitation in how one understands when learning it, but there's even a limitation in seeing it. Even there one must... that even when seeing one must...

Shiur on Sefer HaMada - Hilchos Yesodei HaTorah - Part 5

Topic: Moshe Rabbeinu's Request "Show me Your glory" and the Negation of Bodily Attributes

Lecturer:

Sometimes it's a parable, sometimes he "saw." But "seeing" is only in the vision of prophecy, it doesn't mean that the Almighty actually looks that way. This is how the Almighty shows the prophet, as we see for many reasons. It's even a kind of problem [to say that he sees], but the Almighty shows the prophet an illustration in order to teach him something, and the like.

But it's not the third interpretation, I hope it's not the interpretation regarding the essence of Hashem. It's not just a limitation in how one understands when learning it, but there are also many limitations in seeing it. Even [when] one must see, one needs something [that] is a parable. What will he see? One cannot see the Almighty, He has no thing [body]. Eyes can only see things that can be seen. True, [a person] even has imagination, even in the mind one can only see things that can be seen.

I say, here comes the second expectation of the truth of the matter. But the truth of the matter, that the Almighty is true – one opinion is it cannot be grasped nor investigated, one cannot comprehend, not even can one investigate Him. As it says in the verse (Job 11:7): "Can you find out the depth of God? Can you find out the limit of the Almighty?" One cannot come to understand the Almighty.

Moshe Rabbeinu's Request: "Show me Your glory"

If so... now there's one interesting piece, if so... I said that it says here in my commentary. If you're telling me now that one cannot see the Almighty, I have a big question, that Moshe Rabbeinu did want to see. What did Moshe Rabbeinu ask – "Show me please Your glory" (Exodus 33:18)?

This piece is seemingly... one cannot [see] You, one can only through... one cannot at all. One cannot see the Almighty Himself. So what is Moshe Rabbeinu asking? The parable he had already seen. What is he talking about, "Show me please Your glory", he wants to see more than the parable. More than the parable one cannot.

Or you can even read that he didn't know that. He asks a question, what does it mean? He says that Moshe had already seen Him twice. Here he's already after both things. He's already after the splitting of the sea and after the giving of the Torah. He asks again "Show me please Your glory". He must be asking for this. He knows that both things he saw were a parable.

What was Moshe's request? Moshe sought to know the truth of the existence of the Holy One, blessed be He, the true existence of the Almighty, why did he ask for it. No, let me read it. Let me read this piece, it will make it easier.

The question is understandable, yes? One can think that it was explained, one can explain differently, but it's certainly a question that people immediately ask. Moshe did see the Almighty, there's a whole discussion. The Almighty says "No man shall see Me [and live]", one can see, one can see the back, one cannot see the front, something one can see.

The Parable of Seeing: Front and Back

The Rambam says as follows, I will explain to you what's happening here. Moshe Rabbeinu wanted to know the Almighty's existence so well, by way of parable, just as a person sees another person from the front, he sees him from the front, he knows clearly the difference between this person and another person. This is the meaning.

In other words, the Rambam here explains the parable of front and back. What does front and back mean? It means as follows:

When I see a person from the back, I don't see... I can see, the person is tall, I know, I can know with certain signs what makes this person different from another person. Yes, what does it mean to know a person? To know a person doesn't mean to know that this is a person – all people are people. It means to know the difference between him and another person. Right, what is unique to this person? How is he different from other people?

So, when I see a person from the front, that's the clearest way. I can see he has a different face from another, I see him clearly, I know clearly the difference between him and another person, I can recognize him. I see a person from the back, maybe sometimes I can recognize him a little, but it's not so clear. I think from the back most people look similar.

The Rambam says, Moshe Rabbeinu's request was that he should see the Almighty's front. What does the Almighty's front mean? It should be clear to him how the Almighty is different from all other existences, the same kind of clarity as a person has when he sees a person from the front – which is different from when a person sees a person from the back.

The Almighty told him that a person cannot fully understand this as long as he lives. What does it mean that he lives? Because he has a body. Because his body thinks that the Almighty is not similar to bodies, therefore a person who is in a body cannot understand the Almighty who is [not] similar to other bodies. He still goes – even a prophet, even a great sage like Moshe – a little he thinks that the Almighty is like a body or is similar to all other things.

But He showed him enough, like a person who sees him from the back, or a person who walks with certain garments that are different – a king walks with a garment, even from the back one can immediately see that he's a king. So too the Almighty showed him enough that he should understand in the aspect of back.

What does in the aspect of back mean? After understanding the aspect of "back," he did understand that the Almighty's existence is different from all existence. This is not as good [as front], we say it too, but it seems there are levels in this. The Rambam does say in chapter 59 in Moreh Nevuchim, that there are levels in this. Regarding the true understanding of this, he didn't see except in the aspect of, by way of parable, as well as I know the difference between one person and another person whom I saw from the back.

This is the Rambam's explanation. Now you can read it, you'll see how clear it is.

Reading the Rambam (Halachos 12-13)

He says as follows: "Moshe Rabbeinu sought to know the truth of the existence of the Holy One, blessed be He," Moshe wanted to know the truth of the Almighty's existence, and he wanted to know it in such a manner "that the knowledge in his heart would be like the knowledge of one of the people whose face he saw and whose form was engraved in his heart."

A person can know about another person in his head, but not in his heart, not have a clear picture of him. "And he would be distinguished in his mind from other people." What this means, he said... it's not just that one knows that person exists, but also that one knows to distinguish him among all other people.

And seemingly this is what he says "and his form was engraved," he wants to make that it's not the seeing. The parable is not the seeing, the parable is the understanding that comes from seeing. You can perhaps say a little that one who has clearly seen a person, he has like a copy of him somewhere in his mind, although he doesn't have small copies of people, one feels it. Again when one knows about someone, one doesn't have a copy of that person's picture in one's head. This is the scope of the seeing, he wants to make that the seeing is a parable for something that when you see someone's face, afterwards you have in your intellect an understanding.

Moshe Rabbeinu wanted to understand that the difference between the existence of the Holy One, blessed be He and the existence of all others, that the existence of the Almighty is the essential existence, the first existence, this he wanted to understand well.

The Almighty told him that as long as a person lives... it's very interesting, it seems that if a person wouldn't have the deficiency of living, perhaps when a person dies, if he needs to know, and then one doesn't have the body, then one could grasp essential existence without a body. But as long as you, Moshe Rabbeinu, still live, you still have the deficiency, the limitation of a body.

"So Moshe Rabbeinu sought" and he wanted, he sought that the existence of the Holy One, blessed be He should have in his heart, in his knowledge, in his feeling, the existence of the Almighty separate from all other existences in existence, he should understand the difference between other existences and the Almighty's existence.

And he wanted to know the true existence of the Holy One, blessed be He how He is to know, and how He is to know how He truly exists. He wanted to know this without a parable. Without a parable. Because through this he sees a head, he sees without a parable. When one sees a back one sees without a parable [?]. When one sees a face one doesn't see without a parable. He wanted to see a head, one sees the difference of this person from other people, one sees but one sees only the general difference between him and another.

"And the Holy One, blessed be He answered him that there is no power in the mind of a living person, who is composed of body and soul, to grasp the truth of this matter thoroughly," until the end, something of it one never sees.

"And the Holy One, blessed be He informed him," the Almighty did inform him something that a person cannot, "what no person knew before him," the Almighty informed him something that a person didn't know before Moshe, and a person didn't grasp after Moshe. Indeed He did give him the greatest knowledge that any human ever received, "until he grasped the truth of His existence," until he did grasp of the Almighty's existence, "something that distinguished the Holy One, blessed be He in his mind from other existences," he did understand the Almighty's existence differently than one understands all people's existence, all existences' existence.

"Just as one of the people whose back he saw and grasped his entire body and clothing in his mind would be distinguished from other people," just as when a person sees someone from the back he knows much more than if he hadn't seen him at all, because when he saw him from the back he saw him differently from all others. In the same way Moshe Rabbeinu did grasp the truth of the existence of the Holy One, blessed be He differently from all other people's existence, but still not in the manner that he had asked to be able to see the front.

Because this is what the verse says, "And you shall see My back," you can grasp My true existence in a manner by parable like one sees a person's back, "but My face shall not be seen."

Now seemingly the next rest of this chapter, I don't know exactly what he's innovating, I mean that he's repeating what he said, he is explaining yes. I mean that he's talking about the attributes of bodies more than that no, he said that the Almighty is not a body, now he says that therefore the characteristics that bodies have don't apply to the Almighty. He explains in other places what Moshe Rabbeinu wanted to understand better than other people, because that the Almighty's existence is different from everything else, this Moshe Rabbeinu also understood. He wanted to understand better and less, but this is not our topic now.

As Rabbi Dovid'l of Lelov said, "In the back of the table, all the way..." anyway, let's finish this chapter.

Negation of Bodily Occurrences (Halacha 14)

"And since it has been clarified that He is not a body or corporeal," let's try to say what he's saying here. Now he says that he's adding another important thing. We have now learned that the Almighty is one, we have learned that the Almighty is not a body, and he has answered all kinds of verses that sound like the Almighty is a body. He could have said that since He is not a body, it's obvious, but he adds it.

Therefore things that happen to bodies don't happen to Him. There are all kinds of things, people often imagine that the Almighty is not a body, but He can laugh, He can be happy. Happy is something that pertains to a body. Without a body one is not happy, there's perhaps something that is a parable of happy, I don't know, but not a body.

So therefore, if He has no body, it comes out, "it is clarified," it becomes clear, "that the occurrences of bodies do not happen to Him," none of the things that happen to a body. Occurrences of bodies means to be big, to be small, to be on the sides. All these things are not what a body is, but what happens to a body. This is called in the language of the Rishonim "accidents of bodies," or "occurrences of bodies" as the Rambam calls it here.

Yes, that means, I understand that he's saying that my table is white – that's something that happened to what is a body. It's not the same thing. But because the Almighty is not a body, therefore things that happen to bodies don't happen to Him, and therefore He doesn't have a long list of things.

* "Not connection nor separation" – means He doesn't connect to other things, the Almighty doesn't touch. He's also not far, because far can be when two bodies are far from each other. But when one is not a body, one can be neither close nor far.

* "Not ascending nor descending" – He cannot go up and go down.

* "Not right nor left, not front nor back, not sitting nor standing."

Oh, sorry, sorry, sorry, we skipped. He says:

* "Not place nor measure" [in the source: and not place and not measure]. "Not place" means He is not located in any place, and "not measure" means He has no measure, He is not twenty cubits big.

And He cannot go up and not go down, He has no right side and no left side, no front, no back, no sitting, no standing. All these words are words that are written in the Torah about the Almighty [but are not literal].

Negation of Time and Change

"And He has no time such that He would have a beginning and end and a count of years," because only a body has time. Therefore, the Almighty has no time, therefore there is no beginning and no end by Him.

There is no "once" the Almighty, there is no the Almighty "once." There is no that the Almighty "was, is, and will be." When people mean this, they mean that the Almighty is very old. He is not very old; He doesn't get old and He doesn't get young. Therefore He has no years. There is no "Your years shall not end" [Psalms 102:28], He has no years at all, He is outside of time.

"And He does not change," He doesn't change, "for there is nothing that would cause Him to change."

This is a somewhat more complicated thing, but a body can change. What does it mean it can change? From one of the occurrences it can become different. It was tall, it became shorter. It was in this place, it became in that place. If He is not a body, you don't have what should change, therefore the Almighty cannot change.

Therefore it comes out, not only does He not have... and he lists for you now changes, yes? "And He has no" - He doesn't have all these changes.

Could be, could be you're right. He doesn't have these changes. Death is a change, He has no death.

Okay, "And He has no" - could be, you're saying a good interpretation, I didn't catch that. Therefore the Almighty doesn't have...

"Not death and not life like the life of a living body".

This is a very important expression that the Rambam says here, because he does tell you that the Almighty lives. But when he says "life," he doesn't mean "life like the life of a body." What does it mean that a body lives? It means that it changes, it breathes, it takes in and it goes out, and similar things. This kind of life the Almighty does not have.

But certainly the Almighty has life in the sense of some kind of existence. The Almighty does have - when we say that the Almighty lives, "Chai" (Living) is one of the attributes of the Almighty. But the kind of life that we have, He does not have. You could also say that He has death over them, but death is not bad if one doesn't say it. If it's a parable, you can already say a parable of death too.

"And not foolishness", not lacking knowledge of something, silliness, "and not wisdom".

But when He has wisdom, knows wisdom, He is wise. Why should I have wisdom? Because whatever wisdom there is involves changes. Meanwhile I have changed - yesterday I wasn't wise, now I've become wise, right? So my wisdom is a certain change that happened to my body, or the part of the body. But the Almighty cannot become smart, He doesn't have this kind of wisdom.

Therefore He doesn't "sleep", because He cannot sleep, He doesn't wake up [nor awakening].

So "not anger, not laughter". Interesting that laughter perhaps simply means laughter, but here it apparently doesn't mean laughter as in laughing, but rather being content, right?

"Not joy, and not sadness", He is not happy, not sad.

"Not silence, and not speech like human speech".

Another thing - that the Almighty doesn't speak. Someone says, but yes, the Almighty speaks, "And God spoke"? That is not like human speech. Perhaps there can be silence too, true. But the Almighty doesn't remain silent, because being silent mostly means I'm not speaking. And speaking I also do, but that's a change. I need a body, I need the organs of speech. The Almighty doesn't speak the way a person speaks.

And he brings as I told you: "So the Sages said, above there is no sitting, no standing, no back, and no face".

Not a "back" - means a back.

And "face" - I don't know what he means. Do you know what he means? Face, it's an expression of eyes, like the face. The face has other faces.

But "above" means the Almighty. But "above" here is a parable for the Almighty.

Parable and Metaphor: The Torah Speaks in Human Language

He asks again a question: Besides what we see that the Almighty is given names relating to the body, which he already answered earlier, we also see regarding the Almighty that things are attributed to Him that involve change.

"As it says in the Torah", what is the meaning of all these things? "And all these things and similar ones that are said in the Torah and in the words of the prophets, they are all parable and metaphor".

It's very interesting. What does it say, it says that in the manner of parable and metaphor... "parable and metaphor" already appeared, it appeared once, regarding the attainment of prophecy. I think that perhaps there are things that one says are words of Torah as metaphor, and there is parable and metaphor, instead of the visions of prophecy, that you need to understand, parable and metaphor. I need to think about this more.

"As it says: He who sits in heaven shall laugh" [Psalms 2:4] - the Almighty laughs.

"They have provoked Me with their vanities" [Deuteronomy 32:21] - that the Almighty is angry.

That "anger is the horse of God" and similar things. You cannot literally interpret that it means He is angry, because anger is a change. So what then? It's a parable and metaphor, as I already mentioned that "regarding all these things the Sages said the Torah speaks in human language", that the Almighty simply wants people to understand.

Did he also say "words of the Sages" earlier? No. Earlier he simply said on his own "the Torah speaks in human language," and here he says "words of the Sages" [the Sages said]. Interesting. Something is going on here, one needs to look into this with good eyes.

The meaning is like this: He says that he mentions that the Sages already said this. Earlier he simply said, it's "the Torah speaks in human language," he said it himself. He says that when the Torah speaks in human language, it applies to all these things.

"And so it says", so he brings a proof from a verse, how the verse says that the Almighty cannot be in anger: "Do they provoke Me?" [Jeremiah 7:19]. Because regarding the Almighty, anger is not applicable.

If so, you can ask from Jeremiah, he does say "Do they provoke Me," doesn't it say "for they have provoked Me"? Ah, you must tell me that that is a parable, it means to say that the Almighty is as if He would be angered in anger and the like.

Lowly Bodies and Change

"Behold it says", he brings another proof, doesn't it say in the verse "I am God, I have not changed" [Malachi 3:6], regarding the Almighty change is not applicable.

"And if He were sometimes angry and sometimes happy, He would be changing", there would be a change in Him.

"And all these things", all these things of change, "are only found in lowly bodies", the dark lowly bodies, "who dwell in houses of clay", who rest in matter, in a material thing, "whose foundation is in the dust". But He, blessed be He, is exalted and elevated above all this, the Almighty is higher and higher than all these things, and change is not applicable to Him.

Interesting, what is there apparently? Not bodies, even bodies that are not lowly. Do you know which bodies yes? The sun is a body, it's not a body of dust, and yet it doesn't change in the same way. It's not angry - is the sun sometimes angry? I think not. Maybe yes? I think not. But in any case, this is certain, ah, it's a ball of matter, right? You're right.

All these things are not only found in bodies. Changes are only found in the very weak ones. Not just bodies, but dark and lowly bodies. "Lowly" means on a low level.

Even the celestial spheres don't have change. How much more so the Almighty, as everyone knows, above all this, even above the spheres He is higher. This is only for a person, "houses of clay," those who dwell in earthen houses, yes, that means from a body that is made of matter, or of dust, "whose foundation is in the dust." The Rambam will bring this verse later, he will explain it.

So therefore, the Almighty is certainly higher than this. Therefore, when all these things are written, they must be understood figuratively. It's a parable. Whatever you take, he doesn't say that one should believe it's a parable, but the main thing is to believe that the Almighty is one, He has no body, He has no accidents of the body, and He has no change. What you said here better relates to accidents of the body, that is the same thing as change, but one causes the other.

Conclusion of the Chapter

Wonderful, we have finished the first chapter. It's a difficult chapter, and learn it over a few times, and one can review on the... on most of the day one can review. But also, we're not going to answer questions on this chapter. No, because it's secrets of the Torah, but more or less what I said is true. This one should know.

Wonderful, yasher koach.