The term regel is homonymous, signifying, in the first place, the foot
of a living being; comp. “Foot for foot” (Exod. xxi. 24). Next it
denotes an object which follows another; comp. “And all the people that
follow thee” (lit. that are at thy feet) (ib. xi. 18). Another
signification of the word is “cause”; comp. “And the Lord hath blessed
thee, I being the cause” (leragli) (Gen. xxx. 30), i.e., for my sake;
for that which exists for the sake of another thing has the latter for
its final cause. Examples of the term used in this sense are numerous.
It has that meaning in Genesis xxxiii. 14, “Because (leregel) of the
cattle that goeth before me, and because (leregel) of the children.”
Consequently, the Hebrew text, of which the literal rendering is: “And
his feet shall stand in that day upon the Mount of Olives” (Zech. xiv.
4) can be explained in the following way: “And the things caused by him
(raglav) on that day upon the Mount of Olives, that is to say, the
wonders which will then be seen, and of which God will be the Cause or
the Maker, will remain permanently.” To this explanation does Jonathan
son of Uzziel incline in paraphrasing the passage, “And he will appear
in his might on that day upon the Mount of Olives.” He generally
expresses terms denoting those parts of the body by which contact and
motion are effected, by “his might” [when referring to God], because
all such expressions denote acts done by His Will.
In the passage (Exod. xxiv. 10, lit., “And there was under his feet,
like the action of the whiteness of a sapphire stone”), Onkelos, as you
know, in his version, considers the word (raglav) “his feet” as a
figurative expression and a substitute for “throne”; the words “under
his feet” he therefore paraphrases, “And under the throne of his
glory.” Consider this well, and you will observe with wonder how
Onkelos keeps free from the idea of the corporeality of God, and from
everything that leads thereto, even in the remotest degree. For he does
not say, “and under His throne”; the direct relation of the throne to
God, implied in the literal sense of the phrase “His throne,” would
necessarily suggest the idea that God is supported by a material
object, and thus lead directly to the corporeality of God; he therefore
refers the throne to His glory, i.e., to the Shekhinah, which is a
light created for the purpose.
Similarly he paraphrases the words, “For my hand I lift up to the
throne of God” (Exod. xvii. 16), “An oath has been uttered by God,
whose Shekhinah is upon the throne of his glory.” This principle found
also expression in the popular phrase, “the Throne of the Glory.”
We have already gone too far away from the subject of this chapter, and
touched upon things which will be discussed in other chapters; we will
now return to our present theme. You are acquainted with the version of
Onkelos [of the passage quoted]. He contents himself with excluding
from his version all expressions of corporeality in reference to God,
and does not show us what they (the nobles of the children of Israel,
Exod. xxiv. 10) perceived, or what is meant by that figure. In all
similar instances Onkelos also abstains from entering into such
questions, and only endeavours to exclude every expression implying
corporeality; for the incorporeality of God is a demonstrative truth
and an indispensable element in our faith; he could decidedly state all
that was necessary in that respect. The interpretation of a simile is a
doubtful thing; it may possibly have that meaning, but it may also
refer to something else. It contains besides very profound matter, the
understanding of which is not a fundamental element in our faith, and
the comprehension of which is not easy for the common people. Onkelos,
therefore, did not enter at all into this subject.
We, however, remaining faithful to our task in this treatise, find
ourselves compelled to give our explanation. According to our opinion
“under his feet” (raglav) denotes “under that of which He is the
cause,” “that which exists through Him,” as we have already stated.
They (the nobles of the children of Israel) therefore comprehended the
real nature of the materia prima, which emanated from Him, and of whose
existence He is the only cause. Consider well the phrase, “like the
action of the whiteness of the sapphire stone.” If the colour were the
point of comparison, the words, “as the whiteness of the sapphire
stone” would have sufficed; but the addition of “like the action” was
necessary, because matter, as such, is, as you are well aware, always
receptive and passive, active only by some accident. On the other hand,
form, as such, is always active, and only passive by some accident, as
is explained in works on Physics. This explains the addition of “like
the action” in reference to the materia prima. The expression “the
whiteness of the sapphire” refers to the transparency, not to the white
colour; for “the whiteness” of the sapphire is not a white colour, but
the property of being transparent. Things, however, which are
transparent, have no colour of their own, as is proved in works on
Physics; for if they had a colour they would not permit all the colours
to pass through them nor would they receive colours; it is only when
the transparent object is totally colourless, that it is able to
receive successively all the colours. In this respect it (the whiteness
of the sapphire) is like the materia prima, which as such is entirely
formless, and thus receives all the forms one after the other. What
they (the nobles of the children of Israel) perceived was therefore the
materia prima, whose relation to God is distinctly mentioned, because
it is the source of those of his creatures which are subject to genesis
and destruction, and has been created by him. This subject also will be
treated later on more fully.
Observe that you must have recourse to an explanation of this kind,
even when adopting the rendering of Onkelos, “And under the throne of
His glory”; for in fact the materia prima is also under the heavens,
which are called “throne of God,” as we have remarked above. I should
not have thought of this unusual interpretation, or hit on this
argument were it not for an utterance of R. Eliezer ben Hyrcanus, which
will be discussed in one of the parts of this treatise (II. chap.
xxvi.). The primary object of every intelligent person must be to deny
the corporeality of God, and to believe that all those perceptions
(described in the above passage) were of a spiritual not of a material
character. Note this and consider it well.