The Torah details the formula for the “tithing confession.” The end of this declaration contains the petition to God, worded: “Look forth from Thy holy habitation, from heaven, and bless Thy people Israel…” (Deut. 26, 15; JPS 1917). The simple meaning of the verse, that God’s dwelling-place is in the Heavens, fits well with other verses in Tanakh which have the same assumption or suggestion. God says “I will descend and see” - which sounds as if God is literally descending from on high in order to visit the earth below. The verse “The heavens are my throne, and the earth is my footstool” expands the scope of God’s presence, yet still places His dwelling place as in the heavens above. These descriptions of the Divine dwelling place are not strange in Biblical Hebrew.
The Talmud in Tractate Hagiga follows this principle, expands its scope, and describes the existence of seven firmaments. Each firmament contains a Divine “arm” or branch, each with a different function. One of them contains a store of physical abundance, one of them justice and righteousness, another one -angelic messengers, and above them all – the Divine Throne of Glory (B. Talmud Hagiga 12b-13a). This Aggadic Midrash emphasizes that God is the source of the various forces active in creation: might, lovingkindness, justice, and knowledge. Some of them contradict each other, but they are all considered by the Midrash Aggada to be forces that, together, make up reality.
This Midrash Aggada speaks of the concepts of Middot (attributes) sometimes called Sefirot (spheres). The main claim of the Midrash Aggada is that the behavior of the world is set by the various forces of God, and that it is possible to pinpoint exactly where they flow from. This is done with the help of a detailed “map” of the distribution of these Divine forces throughout the different firmaments, portraying a hierarchy of human needs according to their level of need of intervention from heavenly forces.
In contrast to the Tanakh and Rabbinic literature, which didn’t hold back from detailed anthropomorphic descriptions of God, even in descriptions of creation, Maimonides (Rambam) was vehemently opposed to doing this. His view did not allow ascribing anthropomorphic characteristics to the Shekhinah. He considered this, as well as ascribing specific locations to God, to be heretical. One can surmise that this outlook would have a problem with the description of God as sitting on a royal throne, and with the declaration that God “looks from the heavens!”
It appears that the view of Maimonides has ancient antecedents – as far back as the Second Temple Period. The Mishnah describes Yohanan the High Priest as enacting some decrees: “Yohanan the High Priest abolished the ma’aser confession. He also abolished the awakeners and the strikers. Until his days the hammer used to beat in Jerusalem. And in his days no one needed to ask concerning demai” (Mishnah Maaser Sheni 5:15) WZO and Jewish Agency’s Eliner Library trans.)
One of these decrees was to cancel the “tithing confession” described in Deuteronomy. Much ink was spilled in trying to explain why he cancelled it. One opinion suggests that the confession was cancelled because the details of the Tithing verses could not be fulfilled in their entirety, due to the lack of Leviim in the land to receive the tithes. Because of this, one could not truthfully say “I have done according to all that Thou hast commanded me” as part of the confession formula. According to another view, the meaning of the decree was to protect those who could not recite the confession because they personally did not fulfill all of the details of the commandment of separating tithes. Yet another interpretation can explain this decree as having a reason similar to that of another decree: “He also abolished the awakeners and the strikers” (ibid.) R. Obadiah Bartenura explains the purpose of this decree as attempting to eliminate a prayer that was common among the Levites. Bartenura explains: “abolished the awakeners” – every day, as part of the daily service, the Levites would say: “Awaken, why do You sleep, O Lord?” (Ps. 44:24). He said to them: ‘is God in need of sleep?!’He then abolished this practice.”
According to Bartenura, Yohanan the High Priest was disgusted by the Levites apparently attempting to “awaken” God from his slumber, as it were, when God does not sleep! This explanation portrays Yohanan the High Priest as taking a stand against ascribing anthropomorphic features to God, at least in cases which relate to weakness and personal need. Apparently, even turning to God at “eye-level,” using Biblical anthropomorphic terminology, was not acceptable to Yohanan the High Priest for his generation – a generation that was contending with sectarianism and the challenge posed by the Sadducees.
If it had not been for the cultural-historical context and zeitgeist, it would not be clear why it is not acceptable to refer to God in such terms. In various parts of the liturgy, God is described as “young and vibrant,” with “black curls” – part of a religious tradition of emphasizing God’s strength, power, and supremacy. In Aggadic terms, the metaphor of a” heroic young man” serves to convey aspects which we identify in the world around us, which we would associate with this metaphor. Similarly, if we say that God “dwells in the Heavens above” or “looks forth from the Heavens” we are expressing the traditional concept that there is a Greater Power, One who is ineffable and impossible to grasp – Who sees al that we do. The sky as a “source of light” adds to this metaphor. God is the “Light of the World”, and He occasionally Conceals Himself behind clouds, as it were, engulfing the world in dense fog.
According to this opinion, there is not much difference between the ascribing to God “wisdom of old age on a day of judgment, and youth on a day of war” (from the liturgical Song of Glory) and the Thirteen Principles of Faith of Maimonides, which describe God as “watching and knowing our secrets” and “One, singular, with no other unique as His uniqueness.”
It is clear, then, that the objection of Maimonides to describing God with corporeal attributes does not seem to mean the mere act of describing God. The problem is not with the concepts themselves, but with the values and associations they carry with them, and with potentially erroneous (mis)understandings. What we are dealing with is a language gap: cultural shifts and change necessitated uprooting the original language - whose real meaning was forgotten - in order to prevent theological errors.
The Biblical and Rabbinic image-laden metaphors have an advantage over the abstract concepts. The abstractions rely on the power of the intellect to describe God’s ways, and they may be as specific as possible. But the metaphors, which stimulate the imagination, expand the comprehension of the Divine, beyond that of concepts such as “justice,” judgment,” and “lovingkindness.” The Biblical and Rabbinic (Midrashic) imagery ignites the imagination and stirs the soul, strengthening the sense of connection.
Look forth, God, from Heaven, and bless your people Israel.