What follows from the Tabernacle passage is that the Torah uses the word "one" also to describe something composed of several different components. From here we can draw an analogy to the unity of God, which is described in the Torah with the same word: "the Lord is one." After all, the Torah could have used another word to describe the Tabernacle, for example that the Tabernacle would be whole, or connected, but it chose the word one. In addition, perhaps one can draw an analogy between the Tabernacle and the Holy One, blessed be He, since it is the thing that is meant to represent Him in the world. Just as the Tabernacle is one thing composed of details, so too the Holy One, blessed be He, is one thing composed of details. Also joining this is the linguistic nuance in the alternation between singular and plural in many places in the Torah that describe the Holy One, blessed be He ("In the beginning God created," "the Lord is our God, the Lord is one").

Regarding the comparison to molecules, cells, and organs in a person, I think that’s not similar, because those things are not part of the "I" but of my body. In that sense, it may be that a person’s "I" is made of one single piece (it does not contain several different components), and maybe only when looking at a collective can one compare the unity of the collective to the unity I’m talking about (composite unity). That is, the collective is made up of people who are actually part of the collective itself, and not merely part of the body of the collective (which would be like a person’s "vehicle" in the world).

Why are you ignoring the tradition that learns this the other way around?

And secondly, what is "elohim" anyway? After all, for example it is said about judges. And likewise "I am the Lord your God" in the Ten Commandments. If so, it makes sense to argue that "our God" means our god. "The Lord is one" comes precisely to negate the idea that there is anything else. As it says, "There is none besides Him."
The fact that the word one is sometimes used, as here, to describe a joining of several things only says that there is some depth here. It does not come to teach from there to here… For example, in that same context: "The length of each curtain shall be thirty cubits, and the width of each curtain four cubits; all eleven curtains shall have one measure" (Exodus 26:8).

"Composite unity" is the sort of nonsense that only Christians and kabbalists are capable of believing. After all, it says, "Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother, and they shall become one flesh." Can we infer from this that Adam and Eve were one person? Or, "And there was evening and there was morning, one day." Can we infer from this that the one day is composed of additional elements that also participate in the essence and nature of the concept of "day," from which the day as a whole is composed? Of course not, because evening by itself is not a day, and morning by itself is not a day. If it were conceivable that there were parts in divinity, those parts themselves would not participate in the divine nature.

But in truth one cannot even conceive of divisions in divinity. If God were composed of parts, He would depend both on them and on their union and on His own self-composition from them for His existence, and He would not be the primary cause of reality.

"Elohim" is a plural form used as a majestic plural. Like "the man, the lord of the land, spoke harshly to us, and treated us as spies of the land" (Genesis 42). Was there a multiplicity of persons or lordships in Joseph? Likewise, "the ox shall be stoned, and its owner also shall be put to death" (Exodus 21) explicitly speaks of one owner, though the word is plural in form. Or: "And the Lord said to Moses, See, I have made you a god to Pharaoh" (Exodus 7). Was Moses a multiplicity of divinities to Pharaoh?

Oren,
The body too is one. We perceive an organic whole as one thing. Even materialists relate to a person as one being. Indeed, in my view that unity is a result of the soul within him, but conceptually that is probably not necessary.
As I said, I don’t really understand what "one" means in this context, but it may be a unity of parts, as in an organism.

Copenhagen, your certainty (both in this case and in general) is completely excessive (and here also plainly mistaken, in my opinion). On the interpretive level one can certainly argue about the examples you brought, but here I am referring mainly to the philosophical level. I don’t see why an organism should not be treated as one thing. Even in the world of concepts, the concept of democracy is also composed of several characteristics (elections, rights, separation of powers, and the like) that join into one concept. Some see this as a convention, but I don’t agree with that (I explained this in Two Carts, second section. And see there a beautiful example from Borges’s story, Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius).

It seems to me there is a misunderstanding here. I did not claim that one cannot treat a complex organism as one thing. The contradiction that I think exists in the concept of "composite unity" arises only when attributing it to God, but not with respect to other concepts. In general, most early theists held this way—Maimonides, the author of Duties of the Heart, Aquinas, Duns Scotus, and many others. Only in recent generations did philosophers who did not really grasp the depth of the scholastics’ arguments introduce complexity into God (the view is sometimes called Theistic Personalism), something that all of the above would have considered heresy.

The examples from biblical language were meant to show why the proofs Oren tried to bring for an alleged plurality in divinity—from the fact that the Tabernacle is one, that the "our God" of Shema Yisrael (which comes from "elohim") is one, or "In the beginning God created"—are ridiculous. One cannot infer from them that there is any plurality whatsoever in the Creator. That is all I am claiming emphatically: that his verses contain no proof. The certainty comes from the fact that if reality is such that there is no proof, then that is a definite fact—it is not in superposition—otherwise it would not be a fact at all.

By contrast, one can bring positive biblical evidence for the unity of God showing that heaven forbid one should relate to Him as Oren did, as "perhaps different gods" or "our gods and not our God," as well as philosophical evidence.

The unity of God is not a fundamental principle in the Torah. The plain meaning in the Torah is that God is not one single thing, but rather, as you noted, several things that unite into one thing. The first time God refers to Himself, you can see the plurality that the plural name "Elohim" hints at: "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness."
Only later did people begin to think critically and systematically about these things, and then they started dealing with the attributes of God. And the result is that instead of one complex God, there are many simple gods. Every approach has its own god.

Last Posek,

Can one infer merely from the words "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness" in themselves that there is some plurality in God? I do not see how. After all, many times the Holy One, blessed be He, is described as being together with others, as a king surrounded by His angels. For example, in Isaiah chapter 6 the seraphim are found in His presence; Ezekiel envisions the cherubim. In Job it is said about the time of creation: "Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding… when the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy" (38).

The characteristic divine mode of governance in the Bible does not refrain from involving created beings in its plans. For example, Isaiah chapter 6: "And I heard the voice of the Lord saying: Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? And I said: Here am I; send me."

And likewise:
"And he said, Therefore hear the word of the Lord: I saw the Lord sitting on His throne, and all the host of heaven standing by Him, on His right and on His left. And the Lord said, Who will entice Ahab, so that he may go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead? And one said this, and another said that. Then a spirit came forward and stood before the Lord and said: I will entice him. And the Lord said to him: By what means? And he said: I will go out, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And He said: You shall entice him, and you shall also prevail; go out and do so" (I Kings 22).

Or before the destruction of Sodom:
"And the Lord said, Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do? Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed through him. For I have known him, to the end that he may command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord, to do righteousness and justice…" and afterward the famous "bargaining" appears.

If you look carefully, you will find that even Christian commentators who believe in the Trinity—those among them who have intellectual integrity—admit that the plain meaning of the text points to an address to the angels, and that theologians who read otherwise fall into anachronism. Therefore the text does not leave you in doubt regarding to whom the act of creation itself is attributed: "And God created man in His image; in the image of God He created him."

And so too in Bereishit Rabbah:

"When Moses was writing the Torah, once he came to the verse, 'And God said: Let us make man,' he said before Him: Master of the universe, why do You give an opening to the heretics [to say that there are two authorities]? I am astonished. The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him: Write! And whoever wishes to err, let him err."

The midrash says that the claim that there may be plurality in divinity in the Bible is so absurd that malicious intent is required in order to persist in that mistake.

Copenhagen: "If you look carefully, you will find that even Christian commentators who believe in the Trinity…"

When I look carefully, I don’t arrive at Christian commentators who believe in the Trinity. You do. There is a gap between us in our perception of reality, and therefore I have nothing at all to say about your interpretations of the text.

You diverted the discussion without giving any serious answer to my claims, but I’ll respond anyway: if truth interests you, you try to examine anyone who says something sensible in his field, and accept the truth from whoever says it. Of course, this is a response unrelated to the motivation that moves you to write musings like these, but in the end it is not intended for you 🙂