2.4. Anthropomorphism in medieval times (Rishonim)
2.4.1 The Great Commentators: Maimonides, Nahmanides, Rashi, ibn Ezra
The greatest commentators by almost all standards would be the Rishonim. Of these the most famous are probably Maimonides (Rambam), Rashi, Nahmanides (Ramban) and ibn Ezra.
Maimonides (Rambam), in the 12th century, argues strongly against anthropomorphism in all his books. Many people believe he is the primary reason that there is unanimity in the non-corporeality of God starting around the 16th century. He wrote: “The Torah describes God using terms that could be understood by all. It anthropomorphizes Him because far too many people are simply incapable of conceiving of an incorporeal Being. We see things through the filter of our own experiences and we therefore relate existing to having a body. When we think of God, it’s only natural to picture Him in terms we understand, i.e., like us.”
Nahmanides felt the same way. In a letter, he wrote that he heard that some French Rabbis had criticized Rambam’s Mishneh Torah assertion that God has no form or image. Ramban then pointed out the presence of the doctrine of incorporeality throughout the Tanakh and the Midrashim.
Ibn Ezra also agrees with Maimonides in his flat condemnation of anthropomorphism. In his method of analysis, if a verse contradicts (1) sense perception, (2) rational or perceived truth, (3) deductive reasoning, (4) another verse of the Torah, then it must be reinterpreted: he is very rational. In a previous example, he writes about “They saw the God of Israel” (Exodus 24:10): “They did not see him literally, but in a prophetic vision. “ In the same way, he addresses “Your right Hand, O Lord, glorious in power’ (Exodus 15:6): “your right hand” metaphorically represents “your strength”
Rashi, probably the most important Jewish commentator ever, is ironically ambiguous on anthropomorphism.
In some places, he explicitly goes against anthropomorphism. In his discussion about Talmud tractate Makkos 12a “Dyed garments” – from the blood of [the angel] Samael”, Rashi writes: “ Although the angels are not of flesh and blood, Scripture speaks of it as though with the slaying of man, to direct the ear with what it is able to hear.”
But, in others, he supports it: “A mourner is obligated to overturn his bed, as Bar Kappara taught, [God said,] “I gave them the likeness of My appearance, and they overturned it with their sins.” (Talmud, Mo’ed Katan 15a-b)” To which Rashi writes: “For when a person dies, his face becomes overturned and changes… “ Rabbi Slifkin concludes: “Rashi interprets the deceased’s loss of the image of God as referring to his facial decomposition. Although the Talmud could easily have been explained differently, Rashi explains it as man being made physically in the image of God.”
So Rashi does not have a consistent view. Possibly, being modest and respectful of others, he did not want to enter into a controversy with other scholars he respected.
2.4.2. Other Rishonim
Based on the opinions of the major Rishonim listed above, most Rishonim must have been against anthropomorphism. But we know for sure that some were not:
- From Nachmanides’ letter there must have been some Rishonim who were anthropomorphists, since he needs to disagree with them.
- Abraham ben David disagrees with Maimonides calling corporealists heretic: he writes that “greater and better people than Rambam” were corporealists”
- Rabbi Slifkin reports that “Rabbi Isaiah ben Elijah of Trani speaks of scholars who believed in a corporeal God. He notes that they do not believe that He is made of flesh and blood, but rather that He is made of a more ethereal substance, in gigantic human form. While he disputes this view of God, he argues that those who possess this belief cannot be termed heretics, since even some of the holy Sages of the Talmud possessed this belief.”
- Rabbi Moshe Taku is an extreme anthropomorphist who argued strongly for it almost a century after the death of Maimonides.
After Maimonides’s death, however, anthropomorphism became a minority view among mainstream Torah scholars that disappeared in the next 2 centuries.
Born left-handed 