The following question might perhaps be asked: Since there is no
possibility of obtaining a knowledge of the true essence of God, and
since it has also been proved that the only thing that man can
apprehend of Him is the fact that He exists, and that all positive
attributes are inadmissible, as has been shown; what is the difference
among those who have obtained a knowledge of God? Must not the
knowledge obtained by our teacher Moses, and by Solomon, be the same as
that obtained by any one of the lowest class of philosophers, since
there can be no addition to this knowledge? But, on the other hand, it
is generally accepted among theologians and also among philosophers,
that there can be a great difference between two persons as regards the
knowledge of God obtained by them. Know that this is really the case,
that those who have obtained a knowledge of God differ greatly from
each other; for in the same way as by each additional attribute an
object is more specified, and is brought nearer to the true
apprehension of the observer, so by each additional negative attribute
you advance toward the knowledge of God, and you are nearer to it than
he who does not negative, in reference to God, those qualities which
you are convinced by proof must be negatived. There may thus be a man
who after having earnestly devoted many years to the pursuit of one
science, and to the true understanding of its principles, till he is
fully convinced of its truths, has obtained as the sole result of this
study the conviction that a certain quality must be negatived in
reference to God, and the capacity of demonstrating that it is
impossible to apply it to Him. Superficial thinkers will have no proof
for this, will doubtfully ask, Is that thing existing in the Creator,
or not? And those who are deprived of sight will positively ascribe it
to God, although it has been clearly shown that He does not possess it.
E.g., while I show that God is incorporeal, another doubts and is not
certain whether He is corporeal or incorporeal; others even positively
declare that He is corporeal, and appear before the Lord with that
belief. Now see how great the difference is between these three men;
the first is undoubtedly nearest to the Almighty; the second is remote,
and the third still more distant from Him. If there be a fourth person
who holds himself convinced by proof that emotions are impossible in
God, while the first who rejects the corporeality, is not convinced of
that impossibility, that fourth person is undoubtedly nearer the
knowledge of God than the first, and so on, so that a person who,
convinced by proof, negatives a number of things in reference to God,
which according to our belief may possibly be in Him or emanate from
Him, is undoubtedly a more perfect man than we are, and would surpass
us still more if we positively believed these things to be properties
of God. It will now be clear to you, that every time you establish by
proof the negation of a thing in reference to God, you become more
perfect, while with every additional positive assertion you follow your
imagination and recede from the true knowledge of God. Only by such
ways must we approach the knowledge of God, and by such researches and
studies as would show us the inapplicability of what is inadmissible as
regards the Creator, not by such methods as would prove the necessity
of ascribing to Him anything extraneous to His essence, or asserting
that He has a certain perfection, when we find it to be a perfection in
relation to us. The perfections are all to some extent acquired
properties, and a property which must be acquired does not exist in
everything capable of making such acquisition.
You must bear in mind, that by affirming anything of God, you are
removed from Him in two respects; first, whatever you affirm, is only a
perfection in relation to us; secondly, He does not possess anything
superadded to this essence; His essence includes all His perfections,
as we have shown. Since it is a well-known fact that even that
knowledge of God which is accessible to man cannot be attained except
by negations, and that negations do not convey a true idea of the being
to which they refer, all people, both of past and present generations,
declared that God cannot be the object of human comprehension, that
none but Himself comprehends what He is, and that our knowledge
consists in knowing that we are unable truly to comprehend Him. All
philosophers say, “He has overpowered us by His grace, and is invisible
to us through the intensity of His light,” like the sun which cannot be
perceived by eyes which are too weak to bear its rays. Much more has
been said on this topic, but it is useless to repeat it here. The idea
is best expressed in the book of Psalms, “Silence is praise to Thee”
(lxv. 2). It is a very expressive remark on this subject; for whatever
we utter with the intention of extolling and of praising Him, contains
something that cannot be applied to God, and includes derogatory
expressions; it is therefore more becoming to be silent, and to be
content with intellectual reflection, as has been recommended by men of
the highest culture, in the words “Commune with your own heart upon
your bed, and be still” (Ps. iv. 4). You must surely know the following
celebrated passage in the Talmud—would that all passages in the Talmud
were like that!—although it is known to you, I quote it literally, as I
wish to point out to you the ideas contained in it: “A certain person,
reading prayers in the presence of Rabbi Ḥaninah, said, ‘God, the
great, the valiant and the tremendous, the powerful, the strong, and
the mighty.’—The rabbi said to him, Have you finished all the praises
of your Master? The three epithets, ‘God, the great, the valiant and
the tremendous,’ we should not have applied to God, had Moses not
mentioned them in the Law, and had not the men of the Great Synagogue
come forward subsequently and established their use in the prayer; and
you say all this! Let this be illustrated by a parable. There was once
an earthly king, possessing millions of gold coin; he was praised for
owning millions of silver coin; was this not really dispraise to him?”
Thus far the opinion of the pious rabbi. Consider, first, how repulsive
and annoying the accumulation of all these positive attributes was to
him; next, how he showed that, if we had only to follow our reason, we
should never have composed these prayers, and we should not have
uttered any of them. It has, however, become necessary to address men
in words that should leave some idea in their minds, and, in accordance
with the saying of our Sages, “The Torah speaks in the language of
men,” the Creator has been described to us in terms of our own
perfections; but we should not on that account have uttered any other
than the three above-mentioned attributes, and we should not have used
them as names of God except when meeting with them in reading the Law.
Subsequently, the men of the Great Synagogue, who were prophets,
introduced these expressions also into the prayer, but we should not on
that account use [in our prayers] any other attributes of God. The
principal lesson to be derived from this passage is that there are two
reasons for our employing those phrases in our prayers: first, they
occur in the Pentateuch; secondly, the Prophets introduced them into
the prayer. Were it not for the first reason, we should never have
uttered them; and were it not for the second reason, we should not have
copied them from the Pentateuch to recite them in our prayers; how then
could we approve of the use of those numerous attributes! You also
learn from this that we ought not to mention and employ in our prayers
all the attributes we find applied to God in the books of the Prophets;
for he does not say, “Were it not that Moses, our Teacher, said them,
we should not have been able to use them”; but he adds another
condition—“and had not the men of the Great Synagogue come forward and
established their use in the prayer,” because only for that reason are
we allowed to use them in our prayers. We cannot approve of what those
foolish persons do who are extravagant in praise, fluent and prolix in
the prayers they compose, and in the hymns they make in the desire to
approach the Creator. They describe God in attributes which would be an
offence if applied to a human being; for those persons have no
knowledge of these great and important principles, which are not
accessible to the ordinary intelligence of man. Treating the Creator as
a familiar object, they describe Him and speak of Him in any
expressions they think proper; they eloquently continue to praise Him
in that manner, and believe that they can thereby influence Him and
produce an effect on Him. If they find some phrase suited to their
object in the words of the Prophets they are still more inclined to
consider that they are free to make use of such texts—which should at
least be explained—to employ them in their literal sense, to derive new
expressions from them, to form from them numerous variations, and to
found whole compositions on them. This license is frequently met with
in the compositions of the singers, preachers, and others who imagine
themselves to be able to compose a poem. Such authors write things
which partly are real heresy, partly contain such folly and absurdity
that they naturally cause those who hear them to laugh, but also to
feel grieved at the thought that such things can be uttered in
reference to God. Were it not that I pitied the authors for their
defects, and did not wish to injure them, I should have cited some
passages to show you their mistakes; besides, the fault of their
compositions is obvious to all intelligent persons. You must consider
it, and think thus: If slander and libel is a great sin, how much
greater is the sin of those who speak with looseness of tongue in
reference to God, and describe Him by attributes which are far below
Him; and I declare that they not only commit an ordinary sin, but
unconsciously at least incur the guilt of profanity and blasphemy. This
applies both to the multitude that listens to such prayers, and to the
foolish man that recites them. Men, however, who understand the fault
of such compositions, and, nevertheless, recite them, may be classed,
according to my opinion, among those to whom the following words are
applied: “And the children of Israel used words that were not right
against the Lord their God” (2 Kings xvii. 9); and “utter error against
the Lord” (Isa. xxxii. 6). If you are of those who regard the honour of
their Creator, do not listen in any way to them, much less utter what
they say, and still less compose such prayers, knowing how great is the
offence of one who hurls aspersions against the Supreme Being. There is
no necessity at all for you to use positive attributes of God with the
view of magnifying Him in your thoughts, or to go beyond the limits
which the men of the Great Synagogue have introduced in the prayers and
in the blessings, for this is sufficient for all purposes, and even
more than sufficient, as Rabbi Ḥaninah said. Other attributes, such as
occur in the books of the Prophets, may be uttered when we meet with
them in reading those books; but we must bear in mind what has already
been explained, that they are either attributes of God’s actions, or
expressions implying the negation of the opposite. This likewise should
not be divulged to the multitude; but a reflection of this kind is
fitted for the few only who believe that the glorification of God does
not consist in uttering that which is not to be uttered, but in
reflecting on that on which man should reflect.
We will now conclude our exposition of the wise words of R. Ḥaninah. He
does not employ any such simile as: “A king who possesses millions of
gold denarii, and is praised as having hundreds”; for this would imply
that God’s perfections, although more perfect than those ascribed to
man are still of the same kind; but this is not the case, as has been
proved. The excellence of the simile consists in the words: “who
possesses golden denarii, and is praised as having silver denarii”;
this implies that these attributes, though perfections as regards
ourselves, are not such as regards God; in reference to Him they would
all be defects, as is distinctly suggested in the remark, “Is this not
an offence to Him?”
I have already told you that all these attributes, whatever perfection
they may denote according to your idea, imply defects in reference to
God, if applied to Him in the same sense as they are used in reference
to ourselves. Solomon has already given us sufficient instruction on
this subject by saying, “For God is in heaven, and thou upon earth;
therefore let thy words be few” (Eccles. v. 2).