When the chief of philosophers [Aristotle] was about to inquire into
some very profound subjects, and to establish his theory by proofs, he
commenced his treatise with an apology, and requested the reader to
attribute the author’s inquiries not to presumption, vanity, egotism,
or arrogance, as though he were interfering with things of which he had
no knowledge, but rather to his zeal and his desire to discover and
establish true doctrines, as far as lay in human power. We take the
same position, and think that a man, when he commences to speculate,
ought not to embark at once on a subject so vast and important; he
should previously adapt himself to the study of the several branches of
science and knowledge, should most thoroughly refine his moral
character and subdue his passions and desires, the offspring of his
imagination; when, in addition, he has obtained a knowledge of the true
fundamental propositions, a comprehension of the several methods of
inference and proof, and the capacity of guarding against fallacies,
then he may approach the investigation of this subject. He must,
however, not decide any question by the first idea that suggests itself
to his mind, or at once direct his thoughts and force them to obtain a
knowledge of the Creator, but he must wait modestly and patiently, and
advance step by step.
In this sense we must understand the words “And Moses hid his face, for
he was afraid to look upon God” (Exod. iii. 6), though retaining also
the literal meaning of the passage, that Moses was afraid to gaze at
the light which appeared to his eye; but it must on no account be
assumed that the Being which is exalted far above every imperfection
can be perceived by the eye. This act of Moses was highly commended by
God, who bestowed on him a well deserved portion of His goodness, as it
is said: “And the similitude of the Lord shall he behold” (Num. xii.
8). This, say our Sages, was the reward for having previously hidden
his face, lest he should gaze at the Eternal. (Talm. B. Berakot Fa.)
But “the nobles of the Children of Israel” were impetuous, and allowed
their thoughts to go unrestrained: what they perceived was but
imperfect. Therefore it is said of them, “And they saw the God of
Israel, and there was under his feet,” etc. (Exod. xxiv. 10); and not
merely, “and they saw the God of Israel”; the purpose of the whole
passage is to criticize their act of seeing and not to describe it.
They are blamed for the nature of their perception, which was to a
certain extent corporeal—a result which necessarily followed, from the
fact that they ventured too far before being perfectly prepared. They
deserved to perish, but at the intercession of Moses this fate was
averted by God for the time. They were afterwards burnt at Taberah,
except Nadab and Abihu, who were burnt in the Tabernacle of the
congregation, according to what is stated by authentic tradition.
(Midr. Rabba ad locum.)
If such was the case with them, how much more is it incumbent on us who
are inferior, and on those who are below us, to persevere in perfecting
our knowledge of the elements, and in rightly understanding the
preliminaries which purify the mind from the defilement of error; then
we may enter the holy and divine camp in order to gaze: as the Bible
says, “And let the priests also, which come near to the Lord, sanctify
themselves, lest the Lord break forth upon them” (Exod. xix. 22).
Solomon, also, has cautioned all who endeavour to attain this high
degree of knowledge in the following figurative terms, “Keep thy foot
when thou goest to the house of God” (Eccles. iv. 17).
I will now return to complete what I commenced to explain. The nobles
of the Children of Israel, besides erring in their perception, were,
through this cause, also misled in their actions; for in consequence of
their confused perception, they gave way to bodily cravings. This is
meant by the words, “Also they saw God and did eat and drink” (Exod.
xxiv. 11). The principal part of that passage, viz., “And there was
under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone” (Exod.
xxiv. 10), will be further explained in the course of the present
treatise (ch. xxviii.). All we here intend to say is, that wherever in
a similar connection any one of the three verbs mentioned above occurs,
it has reference to intellectual perception, not to the sensation of
sight by the eye; for God is not a being to be perceived by the eye.
It will do no harm, however, if those who are unable to comprehend what
we here endeavour to explain should refer all the words in question to
sensuous perception, to seeing lights created [for the purpose],
angels, or similar beings.