The fourth of the Sheva Berachos is prone to misunderstanding. Abudarham warns it could lead to "severe heresy." Thankfully, there are at least three solutions.
One, I think I agree that the Saadia Gaon's nusach resolves this neatly as it focuses on the (seeming) purpose of the bracha and sidesteps the problem completely. I will need to discuss this with my eventual wife (wherever she is) and the rav I will have officiate at my wedding, but my inclination is to use the Saadia Gaon's nusach now.
Two, I would like to offer an alternative interpretation of b'tzelem elohim that illuminates what it was we were actually made in the likeness of - you acknowledge that elohim can also refer to divine beings like angels which is a classical understanding (see Iyov, and other commentary on the "we" vs "I" questions in Bereshit) but I have a bit of a simpler solution based on the ancient linguistics of Semitic languages and the meaning of el/elohim. Much as "Ba'al" means master, I think that "El" better translates as ruler - specifically, someone who has the ability and authority to exercise power. Being made b'tzelem elohim is a theological statement regarding man as an autonomous being with free will, unlike all the animals of the earth that are acting out their programming, and it is a repudiation of the larger pagan world's idea of determined destiny and immutable fate.
I have discussed this idea with David R. extensively and actually have an essay I'll be publishing next week on this idea specifically in relation to our patriarch, Ya'akov; I'll be eager for your thoughts on it.
No need for snideness. Can't say I'm following this convo anymore. I asked you to clarify if you think the text should be updated to conform with non hagshamah conceptions even if the authors were ok with it. You responded in the affirmative. I suppose I'm glad to hear that you're not for that step. But then I'm confused. If you're not for changing the text if the authors were ok with it then you should be fine with the text as is—hagshamah implication notwithstanding.
Your sentences "I asked you to clarify if you think the text should be updated to conform with non hagshamah conceptions even if the authors were ok with it. You responded in the affirmative" indicate that you're still reading the OPPOSITE of what I'm saying, so let me spell this out:
We should NOT change the text of berachos.
We SHOULD change our understanding of that text.
We should do this EVEN if our understanding of the text does not match the AUTHORS' understanding of the text.
I get changing our understanding of metaphysics, imputing it into their words when they may have had a different conception not so much. If you're ok with the bracha as simply written and understood by the authors (with them either ok with hagshamah or at least with its language) and are not for changing the text then what are you trying to accomplish in the article?
I'm attempting to figure out how to read the text of the berachah (WITHOUT changing the text) in a manner that is faithful to our understanding of who Hashem is and what human beings are.
Solution #1 is an attempt to do so by how we parse the berachah.
Solution #2 is an attempt to do so by how we interpret the berachah.
Solution #3 is an attempt to "recover" an older nusach of the berachah which avoids this problem altogether.
In all three cases, I'm working with an understanding of a completely incorporeal God, since that is what I believe to be true.
Now, the discussion in the comments section spiraled off into speculations about exactly what Chazal did or did not believe. I didn't address that AT ALL in my article. I assumed that Chazal shared our view of Hashem. Abudarham and Rambam assumed the same. The only reason we're even talking about another possibility is because that's the direction that the discussion in the comments went.
My original article suggested nothing about changing the text of the berachah, nor did it suggest anything about Chazal believing in a corporeal God.
I think we may going in circles at this point but I'll—perhaps unwisely—give it one more shot. I asked if you agree that you're attempting to smooth out this bracha where the authors may have had no issue employing corporeal language (their true beliefs notwithstanding)? Btw, it may be of interest to you that Rambam—the patron saint 😁 of incorporeality—retained our nusach of the bracha and R Kapach punctuates it with a comma only after tavniso.
Yes, I am attempting to smooth out this berachah (WITHOUT changing the text) where the authors may have had no issue employing corporeal language (their true beliefs notwithstanding).
And yes, I am aware that the Rambam retained our nusach of the berachah. That is why - and I repeat for the nth time - I am NOT claiming we should change the text of the berachah. NOT.
Rabbi Schneeweiss, mentioned something to Happy, curious what you think. Namely, even if we don't take Chazal/Rashi literally, and sign them up for hagshamah, they are obviously still comfortable employing such language, shouldn't that hold for the bracha as well?
I've been following the discussion! My initial thought is that different levels of corporealist language are "acceptable" or "unacceptable" at different stages of evolution in Jewish theology. Just because something might have been (rightly) tolerated at an earlier stage doesn't mean we should tolerate it now. I don't view this as "apologetics" unless it's done with dishonesty. I view it as "upgrading the software" even if the hardware remains the same. Shout out to Shadal, whose comments first sparked this shift in my view of dibrah Torah ki'lshon bnei adam.
As long as you have mentioned Shadal, he did in fact weigh in to this discussion. In his comment on the word be-tsalmenu in Gen. 1:26, he said, "The expressions 'in Our image' and 'image of God' are no proof that the Torah teaches that God has a human form (anthropomorphism), yet it cannot be denied that some of our forebears ascribed a human form to God. Thus, they said in the nuptial blessing, 'Who created man in His image, in the image of the likeness of His form [be-tselem demut tavnito]' (Ketuvot 8a), and tavnit is certainly a term for the structure of the parts of the body. Nevertheless,
our forebears did not believe that God or the angels possessed a physical body like ours... The ancients attributed to God, the angels, and the souls an ethereal substance finer than any body known to us, yet possessing a physical form..." Shadal was unwilling to condemn our "forebears" for maintaining such a belief, and in my view, neither should we. Problem solved??
I'll need to check it out. Are you saying that even tho when the bracha was composed the authors were fine utilizing hagshamah sounding language it should be updated in accord with our current sensibilities?
Yes. I'm also saying that even IF the authors of an older text were not philosophers, and even IF their view of Hashem fell short of "the Maimonidean standard," we as a nation (thanks in no small part to the Rambam) have a more mature view of Hashem, and should update OUR understanding accordingly. The Torah addressed itself to its audience, Chazal to theirs, and we are at a different level of understanding.
To use a non-controversial mashal: I'm sure the Israelites at the time of Matan Torah took "the windows of the heavens were opened" (Bereishis 7:11) literally, believing "the firmament" (ibid. 1:6) to be an actual solid entity and "the waters above the firmament" (ibid. 1:7) to be actual waters. But we know that this isn't the case.
Shocking! Are you serious? Our understanding is one thing but changing the text of berachos is a whole nother thing. That's what the reform did. I'm sure that whatever Shadal says is that linked article is nowhere near as radical as what you're suggesting here! Tampering with berachos is bad enough but then where does it stop? Do you propose tweaking the liturgy as well? All our literature going back to the Torah?
Where did I suggest to change the berachos? If you read my article (which it seems that you did), I said the opposite! And if you read my comment (which it's clear you didn't read carefully enough), I said that we "should update our UNDERSTANDING accordingly."
It all sounds so neat and tidy and all and I appreciate the different attempts (including Saadia's I daresay) at philosophical rigor but let's be honest it is all probably anachronistic, the Chazal that composed this weren't exactly thinking along the lines of Philo and Saadia etc, but more in line with רש"י דברים כ"א:כ"ג
כי קללת אלהים תלוי – זילזולו של מלך הוא, שהאדם עשוי בדמות דיוקנו, וישראל בניו הם. משל לשני אחים שהיו דומין זה לזה, אחד נעשה מלך, ואחד נתפס לליסטיא ונתלה, כל הרואהו אומר המלך תלוי.
which obviously can also be shoehorned into the incorporeal paradigm but presumably refers to e.g.
Ah, I see you're gonna make me review the extensive debate between Rabbi Saul Zucker and Rabbi Natan Slifkin about whether or not Rashi was a corporealist, eh? ;)
I was part of the team that wrote these articles with Rabbi Zucker. The first ones were published in Hakirah, but the later exchanges were not. Rabbi Zucker compiled them. Here's a link to a PDF with all of them. No obligation to read, of course: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QCvhA4cU-fAh1zhbn_mhFkQkTrkETpRt/view?usp=sharing
Nice! Btw, I just realized that the PDF I linked to is only a compilation of the pieces which were NOT published in Hakirah. Here are the links to the Hakirah articles.
That Rashi demonstrates nothing, as Rabbi Shaul Zucker showed. Ani hakatan also wrote about it on my blog here https://irrationalistmodoxism.substack.com/p/was-rashi-a-corporealist, which I discussed with Rabbi Zucker beforehand. TLDR, Rashi wasn't a philosopher, Chazal (mostly) weren't philosophers, so they probably wouldn't have experessed themselves the way the Rambam and R' Saadia did. That doesn't mean they "held" that God is a giant floating corporeal man.
I can't do reading right now. So far as I recall tzelem elokim is either defined as the intellect (Rambam); capacity for speech, which may be the same thing (Onkelos); or the immortal human soul (Maharsha). Any way you slice it a dead person does not have it anymore which seems to indicate that there's something physically similar, as in e.g. Daniel chapter 7. You're welcome to tell me R Zucker's argument here. Additionally, even if you are correct then the same imprecision utilized for that aggadic statement easily accounts for the wording of the blessing as well.
The dead person swinging from a tree also doesn't look like the image of the מעשה מרכבה, to put it mildly. I don't know exactly what Chazal means, but I also don't hear your argument. Maybe it does refer to immortal soul, or the intellect. It's a disgrace for a person who possessed these qualities to hang overnight. The image of the מעשה מרכבה in Daniel 7 is just that, an image. It doesn't mean that God has the immutable form of an old man. Hashem appears as many things throughout Tanach. Sometimes as a fire, as a cloud, as a warrior, sometimes just a voice. Shlomo Hamelech, way before the Rambam, said הנה השמים ושמי השמים לא יכלכלוך.
You can be facetious if you'd like but you know that it doesn't work out well, especially with the mashal. Regardless, as I mentioned to R Schneeweiss, everything can be shoehorned, all you've done is provide the apologetic shoehorn. As for Shlomo's statement, ever heard of the Shiur Komah (which left Rambam scandalized)? Even if God is only conceived of or represented as the form of a man, even if he truly isn't, then it still accounts for not letting a human hang and the nusach of the bracha.
No. Tanach is clear that God is great beyond our comprehension and is nothing like us. The shoehorning is the person who claims that it actually refers to a giant cartoonish floating man.
Your last sentence, I might be able to agree with!
One, I think I agree that the Saadia Gaon's nusach resolves this neatly as it focuses on the (seeming) purpose of the bracha and sidesteps the problem completely. I will need to discuss this with my eventual wife (wherever she is) and the rav I will have officiate at my wedding, but my inclination is to use the Saadia Gaon's nusach now.
Two, I would like to offer an alternative interpretation of b'tzelem elohim that illuminates what it was we were actually made in the likeness of - you acknowledge that elohim can also refer to divine beings like angels which is a classical understanding (see Iyov, and other commentary on the "we" vs "I" questions in Bereshit) but I have a bit of a simpler solution based on the ancient linguistics of Semitic languages and the meaning of el/elohim. Much as "Ba'al" means master, I think that "El" better translates as ruler - specifically, someone who has the ability and authority to exercise power. Being made b'tzelem elohim is a theological statement regarding man as an autonomous being with free will, unlike all the animals of the earth that are acting out their programming, and it is a repudiation of the larger pagan world's idea of determined destiny and immutable fate.
I have discussed this idea with David R. extensively and actually have an essay I'll be publishing next week on this idea specifically in relation to our patriarch, Ya'akov; I'll be eager for your thoughts on it.
Excellent analysis, Evan! I look forward to reading your next article - and your most recent one!
No need for snideness. Can't say I'm following this convo anymore. I asked you to clarify if you think the text should be updated to conform with non hagshamah conceptions even if the authors were ok with it. You responded in the affirmative. I suppose I'm glad to hear that you're not for that step. But then I'm confused. If you're not for changing the text if the authors were ok with it then you should be fine with the text as is—hagshamah implication notwithstanding.
Your sentences "I asked you to clarify if you think the text should be updated to conform with non hagshamah conceptions even if the authors were ok with it. You responded in the affirmative" indicate that you're still reading the OPPOSITE of what I'm saying, so let me spell this out:
We should NOT change the text of berachos.
We SHOULD change our understanding of that text.
We should do this EVEN if our understanding of the text does not match the AUTHORS' understanding of the text.
Clearer?
I get changing our understanding of metaphysics, imputing it into their words when they may have had a different conception not so much. If you're ok with the bracha as simply written and understood by the authors (with them either ok with hagshamah or at least with its language) and are not for changing the text then what are you trying to accomplish in the article?
I'm attempting to figure out how to read the text of the berachah (WITHOUT changing the text) in a manner that is faithful to our understanding of who Hashem is and what human beings are.
Solution #1 is an attempt to do so by how we parse the berachah.
Solution #2 is an attempt to do so by how we interpret the berachah.
Solution #3 is an attempt to "recover" an older nusach of the berachah which avoids this problem altogether.
In all three cases, I'm working with an understanding of a completely incorporeal God, since that is what I believe to be true.
Now, the discussion in the comments section spiraled off into speculations about exactly what Chazal did or did not believe. I didn't address that AT ALL in my article. I assumed that Chazal shared our view of Hashem. Abudarham and Rambam assumed the same. The only reason we're even talking about another possibility is because that's the direction that the discussion in the comments went.
My original article suggested nothing about changing the text of the berachah, nor did it suggest anything about Chazal believing in a corporeal God.
I think we may going in circles at this point but I'll—perhaps unwisely—give it one more shot. I asked if you agree that you're attempting to smooth out this bracha where the authors may have had no issue employing corporeal language (their true beliefs notwithstanding)? Btw, it may be of interest to you that Rambam—the patron saint 😁 of incorporeality—retained our nusach of the bracha and R Kapach punctuates it with a comma only after tavniso.
Yes, I am attempting to smooth out this berachah (WITHOUT changing the text) where the authors may have had no issue employing corporeal language (their true beliefs notwithstanding).
And yes, I am aware that the Rambam retained our nusach of the berachah. That is why - and I repeat for the nth time - I am NOT claiming we should change the text of the berachah. NOT.
Ok, can't say I get it but sure, have at it.
Rabbi Schneeweiss, mentioned something to Happy, curious what you think. Namely, even if we don't take Chazal/Rashi literally, and sign them up for hagshamah, they are obviously still comfortable employing such language, shouldn't that hold for the bracha as well?
I've been following the discussion! My initial thought is that different levels of corporealist language are "acceptable" or "unacceptable" at different stages of evolution in Jewish theology. Just because something might have been (rightly) tolerated at an earlier stage doesn't mean we should tolerate it now. I don't view this as "apologetics" unless it's done with dishonesty. I view it as "upgrading the software" even if the hardware remains the same. Shout out to Shadal, whose comments first sparked this shift in my view of dibrah Torah ki'lshon bnei adam.
https://rabbischneeweiss.substack.com/p/noach-shadals-radical-application
As long as you have mentioned Shadal, he did in fact weigh in to this discussion. In his comment on the word be-tsalmenu in Gen. 1:26, he said, "The expressions 'in Our image' and 'image of God' are no proof that the Torah teaches that God has a human form (anthropomorphism), yet it cannot be denied that some of our forebears ascribed a human form to God. Thus, they said in the nuptial blessing, 'Who created man in His image, in the image of the likeness of His form [be-tselem demut tavnito]' (Ketuvot 8a), and tavnit is certainly a term for the structure of the parts of the body. Nevertheless,
our forebears did not believe that God or the angels possessed a physical body like ours... The ancients attributed to God, the angels, and the souls an ethereal substance finer than any body known to us, yet possessing a physical form..." Shadal was unwilling to condemn our "forebears" for maintaining such a belief, and in my view, neither should we. Problem solved??
🫨 Maybe I'll write an addendum!
I'll need to check it out. Are you saying that even tho when the bracha was composed the authors were fine utilizing hagshamah sounding language it should be updated in accord with our current sensibilities?
Yes. I'm also saying that even IF the authors of an older text were not philosophers, and even IF their view of Hashem fell short of "the Maimonidean standard," we as a nation (thanks in no small part to the Rambam) have a more mature view of Hashem, and should update OUR understanding accordingly. The Torah addressed itself to its audience, Chazal to theirs, and we are at a different level of understanding.
To use a non-controversial mashal: I'm sure the Israelites at the time of Matan Torah took "the windows of the heavens were opened" (Bereishis 7:11) literally, believing "the firmament" (ibid. 1:6) to be an actual solid entity and "the waters above the firmament" (ibid. 1:7) to be actual waters. But we know that this isn't the case.
Shocking! Are you serious? Our understanding is one thing but changing the text of berachos is a whole nother thing. That's what the reform did. I'm sure that whatever Shadal says is that linked article is nowhere near as radical as what you're suggesting here! Tampering with berachos is bad enough but then where does it stop? Do you propose tweaking the liturgy as well? All our literature going back to the Torah?
Where did I suggest to change the berachos? If you read my article (which it seems that you did), I said the opposite! And if you read my comment (which it's clear you didn't read carefully enough), I said that we "should update our UNDERSTANDING accordingly."
Btw see https://judaism.stackexchange.com/a/150082/34188 for an interesting recent discussion related to the definition of tzelem elokim
It all sounds so neat and tidy and all and I appreciate the different attempts (including Saadia's I daresay) at philosophical rigor but let's be honest it is all probably anachronistic, the Chazal that composed this weren't exactly thinking along the lines of Philo and Saadia etc, but more in line with רש"י דברים כ"א:כ"ג
כי קללת אלהים תלוי – זילזולו של מלך הוא, שהאדם עשוי בדמות דיוקנו, וישראל בניו הם. משל לשני אחים שהיו דומין זה לזה, אחד נעשה מלך, ואחד נתפס לליסטיא ונתלה, כל הרואהו אומר המלך תלוי.
which obviously can also be shoehorned into the incorporeal paradigm but presumably refers to e.g.
יחזקאל א':כ"ו
וְעַל֙ דְּמ֣וּת הַכִּסֵּ֔א דְּמ֞וּת כְּמַרְאֵ֥ה אָדָ֛ם עָלָ֖יו מִלְמָֽעְלָה׃
Ah, I see you're gonna make me review the extensive debate between Rabbi Saul Zucker and Rabbi Natan Slifkin about whether or not Rashi was a corporealist, eh? ;)
I was part of the team that wrote these articles with Rabbi Zucker. The first ones were published in Hakirah, but the later exchanges were not. Rabbi Zucker compiled them. Here's a link to a PDF with all of them. No obligation to read, of course: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QCvhA4cU-fAh1zhbn_mhFkQkTrkETpRt/view?usp=sharing
Cool, hadn't known that. Will probably print it out for Shabbat, thanks for sharing!
Nice! Btw, I just realized that the PDF I linked to is only a compilation of the pieces which were NOT published in Hakirah. Here are the links to the Hakirah articles.
"Was Rashi a Corporealist?" (Slifkin): https://hakirah.org/Vol%207%20Slifkin.pdf
"No, Rashi Was Not a Corporealist" (Zucker): https://hakirah.org/Vol%209%20Zucker.pdf
"Rashi's Stance on Corporealism: A Response to Rabbi Zucker" (Slifkin): https://hakirah.org/Vol%209%20Slifkin2.pdf
Btw, to clarify, I wasn't referring to Rashi necessarily but to Chazal (I think R Meir) that he quotes.
That Rashi demonstrates nothing, as Rabbi Shaul Zucker showed. Ani hakatan also wrote about it on my blog here https://irrationalistmodoxism.substack.com/p/was-rashi-a-corporealist, which I discussed with Rabbi Zucker beforehand. TLDR, Rashi wasn't a philosopher, Chazal (mostly) weren't philosophers, so they probably wouldn't have experessed themselves the way the Rambam and R' Saadia did. That doesn't mean they "held" that God is a giant floating corporeal man.
I can't do reading right now. So far as I recall tzelem elokim is either defined as the intellect (Rambam); capacity for speech, which may be the same thing (Onkelos); or the immortal human soul (Maharsha). Any way you slice it a dead person does not have it anymore which seems to indicate that there's something physically similar, as in e.g. Daniel chapter 7. You're welcome to tell me R Zucker's argument here. Additionally, even if you are correct then the same imprecision utilized for that aggadic statement easily accounts for the wording of the blessing as well.
The dead person swinging from a tree also doesn't look like the image of the מעשה מרכבה, to put it mildly. I don't know exactly what Chazal means, but I also don't hear your argument. Maybe it does refer to immortal soul, or the intellect. It's a disgrace for a person who possessed these qualities to hang overnight. The image of the מעשה מרכבה in Daniel 7 is just that, an image. It doesn't mean that God has the immutable form of an old man. Hashem appears as many things throughout Tanach. Sometimes as a fire, as a cloud, as a warrior, sometimes just a voice. Shlomo Hamelech, way before the Rambam, said הנה השמים ושמי השמים לא יכלכלוך.
You can be facetious if you'd like but you know that it doesn't work out well, especially with the mashal. Regardless, as I mentioned to R Schneeweiss, everything can be shoehorned, all you've done is provide the apologetic shoehorn. As for Shlomo's statement, ever heard of the Shiur Komah (which left Rambam scandalized)? Even if God is only conceived of or represented as the form of a man, even if he truly isn't, then it still accounts for not letting a human hang and the nusach of the bracha.
No. Tanach is clear that God is great beyond our comprehension and is nothing like us. The shoehorning is the person who claims that it actually refers to a giant cartoonish floating man.
Your last sentence, I might be able to agree with!