Q&A: A Question About the Verses
A Question About the Verses
Question
With God’s help,
apparently, according to the thirteen hermeneutical principles by which the Torah is interpreted, one can — and perhaps it is even called for — to interpret the verse in the Ten Commandments, God forbid, as a generalization, detail, and generalization: “You shall not make for yourself a carved image or any likeness” — generalization. “That is in the heavens above, or on the earth below, or in the waters below the earth” — detail. “You shall not bow down to them nor serve them” — then it returns to a generalization. If so, a heretic could claim corporeality on the basis of these verses — that He is something between heaven and earth, say, the horizon line, God forbid.
What good proof or proofs can be brought to refute this and shut the mouths of the detractors?
And why wasn’t it simply written in straightforward terms just in the opening clause, not to worship any idol whatsoever or any image, without the elaboration that seemingly leaves room for error?
Thank you very much.
Answer
Even if you interpret these verses as a generalization and detail, it is not a generalization-detail-generalization, but rather detail and generalization. “A carved image or any likeness” are examples, not general categories. Beyond that, the limitation by place does not actually limit anything. There is nothing that is not in the heavens above, on the earth below, or beneath the waters. And beyond all that, the exposition of generalization-detail-generalization is meant to include beyond the examples. It is not intended to exclude but to expand. See the second book in the Talmudic Logic series.
Beyond all this, even if you were to interpret it as you suggest, the conclusion would be only that there is no prohibition against worshipping a statue from outer space. But that does not imply corporeality, because even if there is no formal prohibition against worshipping it, it is still obvious that in reality it is not God.
And similarly regarding the views that gentiles were not warned against associationism. Does that mean there are two gods? Of course not. But there is no halakhic prohibition on them believing that there are.
Discussion on Answer
That He has no bodily form follows from the fact that He fills the whole world (“the whole earth is full of His glory”). And perhaps there is also a tradition about this. But these verses certainly do not teach it, since they deal with what is permitted and forbidden, not theology. See the example I gave about associationism.
Indeed, sometimes “any” is interpreted as a generalization, and I do not know when yes and when no.
And is there also a verse in the Torah that states this fundamental principle that the whole earth is full of His glory, or is that only in the Writings?
I don’t remember at the moment. But if He created everything, what more needs to be added?
Maimonides writes in the introduction to the chapter Helek, in the third principle — the negation of corporeality:
Proof from the Torah:
“And this third principle is indicated by what is said, ‘for you did not see any form’ — that is, you did not apprehend Him as possessing a form, because, as we have said, He is not a body nor a power within a body.
Proof from the Prophets:
And the prophet said, ‘To whom then will you liken God…’ and ‘To whom will you liken Me, that I should be equal…’ and if He were a body, then He would resemble bodies.”
And regarding what you wrote above, “even if you interpret it as you suggest, the conclusion would be that there is no prohibition against worshipping a statue from outer space” —
I’m trying to understand whether the Torah’s method of exposition through the thirteen principles (for example, generalization-detail-generalization in this case) is rigid, meaning that if something is written in that form then one must interpret it that way and reach that conclusion (assuming, for the sake of argument, that this really were a clear case of generalization-detail-generalization). Or is it purely according to my own reasoning, and only if the result of the exposition fits my logic do I interpret it that way, and if not, then not? I’d be glad for a proof/example from the rabbinic expositions for whichever view the Rabbi gives.
P.S. I did not understand why we need the rule of detail and generalization, such as this:
In the laws of returning a lost object, this verse is stated [Deuteronomy 22:3]:
“So shall you do with his donkey, and so shall you do with his garment” — detail
“And so shall you do with every lost thing of your brother” — generalization
Detail and generalization — the generalization adds to the detail and includes everything.
One must return any lost object.
In the laws of bailees it says [Exodus 22:9]:
“If a man gives to his fellow a donkey, or an ox, or a sheep” — detail
“or any animal to keep” — generalization
Detail and generalization — the generalization adds to the detail and includes everything.
The laws of bailees apply to any object given for safekeeping.
For seemingly, if the Torah wanted to include every lost object, it could have written only the generalization, and we would have inferred the kinds from that even without the detail?
(If the Rabbi already has a written answer on this topic that I can look at, I’d be glad for a reference.)
Thank you very much, and Sabbath peace!
Usually, in detail and generalization, the generalization adds beyond ordinary analogy, but still leaves something out. Regarding “every lost thing of your brother,” the matters are explained explicitly in the Talmud in several places.
See Bava Metzia 22b, to exclude something that is lost to him but not lost to everyone. And there on 31a, to include landed property as a lost object. And in Avodah Zarah 26b, to include an apostate. See also Gittin 45a.
With God’s help,
I did not understand how “that is in the heavens and that is on the earth” could possibly be a general category rather than a detail, since everywhere we see that when the Torah specifies things, the Talmud interprets it as a detail and not as a generalization.
Is there a parallel example where a specification is interpreted as a generalization and not as a detail?
Everything in the heavens and everything on the earth is also a general inclusion, not just a detail. If you check what the Sages treat as a generalization, you will see examples even more extreme than this.
P.S. Sorry about the big gap in time — I recently happened to go back and look again at Maimonides’ words, and following that, at your answer, and that’s what raised the question for me… Sorry that I’m driving you crazy 🙂
Well, I don’t have such broad knowledge of the Talmud to do a cross-section of all the places where they expound generalization-detail-generalization, so that’s why I’m asking the Rabbi, if it’s not too much trouble.
Because as I understand and remember, the detail is relative to what is written in the generalization. That is, if something broad/vague appears that does not go down into explanation, and after it comes something a bit more specific, then the specification is interpreted as a detail even if on its own it could be a generalization. And seemingly the same should apply to our verse as well.
Again, I’d be glad for a parallel example or proof, if there is one.
An example I found immediately:
“Rabbi expounds generalizations and details: ‘And you shall make a lampstand’ — generalization; ‘of pure gold’ — detail; ‘beaten work shall the lampstand be made’ — it then returns to a generalization. A generalization-detail-generalization: you judge only according to the nature of the detail. Just as the detail is explicit — metal — so too everything must be of metal.”
It is hard to understand what the criterion here is for generalization or detail. Why do they even split “a lampstand of gold” into two parts?
Search the Responsa Project and you’ll find many more like these.
Hello Rabbi Michi, and thank you for the response. A few comments:
A. Isn’t “any likeness” a general category? I seem to remember that in the Talmud in several places they interpret the word “any” as a generalization.
B. Even if we interpret it as detail and generalization, there is still a problem, because it does not include literally everything with no exceptions. Rather, it is limited by the form of exposition, which both includes and narrows.
C. The exposition of generalization-detail-generalization does include beyond the detail, but only things similar to the detail. So again there is a problem, because this is not an absolute general rule.
D. If this verse is not meant to teach that the Holy One, blessed be He, has no body and no bodily form, then where do we learn that from?