And he called out there in the Name of the Lrd King of the Universe- II

I will admit that this post is taking a very long time to complete. I do not really care about that because, well, what I am trying to understand is pretty large, and I am pretty small. I have gone back and forth about how to approach this a few times, it is something that I do with trepidation. If I end up changing my mind on presentation or order, I will change

What does the argument over the well have to do with anything? Why do we care about Abraham's border conflicts?

How did Abimelech see that " G' was with Abraham" and what did he mean?

Why is the first thing that Abraham does, after settling the covenant with Abimelech, planting an Eshel ( It remains to be seen what an Eshel even is)?

And of course, how does the planting of the Eshel correspond to the last part of the verse " and he called there in the name of the Lrd King of the World" and what does that mean?


What strikes me here is the interaction of Abimelech and his general, with Abraham. It is clear that Abraham was not as militarily powerful as Abimelech and yet Abimelech takes him very seriously, from the beginning. Sure, he says that he has seen that G' is with him but what does this mean? Why would anyone with such a powerful army fear Abraham enough to cede territory to him?

I think that what you have to say here is that the interaction of Abimelech and Abraham was a manifestation of the idea of " Magen Avraham", that is, that the politcal dealings of Abraham were within the realm of Hashgacha. Abimelech saw that Hashgacha saved Abraham from Sodom ( Rashi) and it impacted his view of, and dealings with him. What then is the Eshel and its connection to this episode? Rashi brings down a machlokes in the Talmud between Rav and Shmuel, one holding that the Eshel was an orchard that bore fruit and one holding it was an inn that provided many forms of fruit to its guests. Rashi explains further that through this orchard G's name will be recognized as the Judge of the universe, because they will contemplate the source of the food and realize that it was from he who spoke and brought the world into existance.

So why then did Abraham plant the Eshel, what does it have to do with anything? I think this is a demonstration of what the proper philosophy of ownership is. Abraham was not concerned with his territorial control over the wells qua the wells themselves. What he was concerned with was the ability to control the wells in so far as they were sources of Bracha which leads to reflection. That is to say, that after he secures the wells, he rushes to actualize their potential for yedias Hashem, and he plants the Orchard/ builds the Inn so that he can foster the reflection on the source of Good. The wells provide water which in turns provides sustenance to plants , the plants in turn feed Man. Man then must recognize the true source of the sustenance, the true purpose of the wells, recognition of shem Hashem.

So according to what I am saying so far, the verse focuses on Abrahams utilization of the territory towards a yisod of the universe and not towards his own material gain. He recognizes Hashgacha as manifest in his acquisition, which forces him to reflect on the purpose of property, this causes him to dedicate the property towards Yedia.

Fine, but what does any of this have to do with the Mishneh Torah?

Din and Rachamim Recap, or How Zaqui can Say what I mean concisely

Since I started thinking about the previous post because of Zaqui, ( May the Merciful One protect and establish him), I decided to send it to him. The following is his clarification of my point:

Midat HaDin and Midat HaRachamim are two levels of how nature interecats with man. Midat HaDin is the system of natural laws, and Midat HaRachamim is the system of laws that apply to certain individuals who are more in line with reality. Both midot are part of nature its just that Chachamim benefit more from both aspects whereas normal people only experience/benefit from one.In Noach's case, since the world became corrupted, it had to be destroyed according to natural law (Midat HaDin) but since Noach was a tzadik and lived in line with reality he was subject to another form of law which is why only he and his family was saved. So when the mefarshim point out an exmaple of Hashem's Midat HaRachamim it just means that the certain individuasl benefited from the second sub-system of Hashem's law.

Rachamim and Din

משוך חסדך, ליודעיך; וצדקתך, לישרי לב
O continue Thy lovingkindness unto them that know Thee; and Thy righteousness to the upright in heart

A few weeks back, I had the great blessing to have spent a shabbat in Rockville Maryland with my good friends the Maroofs, ( Rabbi Josh Maroof is the author of vesomsechel.blogspot.com, a personal favorite as well as the Rav of Magen David Sephardic Congregation). I had the opportunity to see my other good friend Zaqui and he asked me a vey good question.

How can we say that there exists Midat Hadin and Midat Harahamim , whilst maintaining the idea of Achduso, his oneness?

The question is of fundamental significance to our belief system. As you know we are told many times that G' is one . Maimonides explains that the knowledge of the existance of G' is the fundamental truth that all other knowledge is based on and that he is a unity that is incomparable to any conception of One that we could have.( Laws of the fundamentals of the Torah chapter 1 law 5{7})

ה [ז] אלוה זה אחד הוא--אינו לא שניים ולא יתר על שניים, אלא אחד, שאין כייחודו אחד מן האחדים הנמצאים בעולם: לא אחד כמין שהוא כולל אחדים הרבה, ולא אחד כגוף שהוא נחלק למחלקות ולקצוות; אלא ייחוד שאין ייחוד אחר כמותו בעולם.

Clearly the two attributes of Rachamim and Din cannot exist in such a way that they would imply a duality within G'!

This may be a simple point but I will state it anyway. The midot that we mention with regards to Hakadosh Baruch Hu, are not separate parts within G' but rather they are linguistic mechanisms that we use so that we can best describe an idea that we are utterly incapable of fully grasping. As Maimonides states further on in the Laws of the foundations of the Torah:

ט אם כן מה הוא זה שנאמר בתורה "ותחת רגליו" (שמות כד,י), "כתובים באצבע אלוהים" (שמות לא,יח; דברים ט,י), "יד ה'" (שמות ט,ג; במדבר יא,כג; דברים ב,טו), "עיני ה'" (דברים יא,יב), "אוזני ה'" (במדבר יא,א; במדבר יא,יח), וכיוצא בדברים הללו--הכול לפי דעתן של בני אדם הוא, שאינן מכירין אלא הגופות; ודיברה תורה כלשון בני אדם. והכול כינויים הם, כמו שנאמר "אם שנותי ברק חרבי" (דברים לב,מא), וכי חרב יש לו ובחרב הוא הורג; אלא משל, והכול משל

9) If so, (That it is explained in the Torah that G' is incorporeal)what does the Torah mean when it says things like, "under His feet" (Exodus 31:18), "written with the finger of God" (ibid), "the hand of the Lord" (Exodus 9:3), "the eyes of the Lord" (Genesis 38:7), "the ears of the Lord" (Numbers 11:1), et cetera? These phrases are in line with the level of understanding of people, who can only comprehend physical existence, and the Torah speaks in terms that we can understand. All examples of this nature are merely attributory. For example, when it says, "If I whet My glittering sword" - does God really have a sword and does He really kill with one?! Such phrases are Mashal, ( parables).

G' does not have parts, however, what is the idea of the two Midot, Din and Rachamim?( Bearing in mind that this is not THE idea or THE explanation since those are impossible).
Midat Hadin can be understood as Natural Law. This is the system that governs planetary motion as well as human interaction. In terms of Midat hadin the laws are set. If you light a match it will burn, if you drop something off of a platform, it will fall.In Parashat Noah it was Midat Hadin that the world be destroyed.The natural system had been abrogated to the extent that the law would have a clear A- B corrolation of corruption to destruction. However, out of Midat Harachamim Noah was permitted to build the Ark and preserve both humanity and the ecosystem, and the world was not destroyed. The question is what is Midat Harachamim such that it can supercede Midat Hadin and it is not a change in G'? In other words, we know that the two attributes are not two parts of G' , what is the relationship of Din to Rachamim such that it is within one idea and not a change?

I believe that the answer, or an approach to one, can be found in a similar question regarding Tefillah. The question in the area of Tefillah is, " How does tefillah work such that you can pray for something and we say that your prayer can be answered and yet it is not a change in G'

Tefillah is not a change in G', as those who worship the stars and their own psyches wish . G' does not change, since G' does not change our prayers can not be attempting the impossible. Tefilla, is a refocusing of Man to be in line with Chachama. In other words Tefilla is a change in Man not G'. When one changes themselves to fit inline with the Briah, they have new laws which are open to them. The system of creation operates differently depending on how you operate with in it, ( this is obvious, nature will deal differently with someone who looks both ways before crossing the street than someone who does not, the first will be protected whilst the second will very likely end up splattered on Madison Avenue, it is the same here if the causes are changed the effects can be assumed to change to suit). In other words, there is one system of laws created by G'. Within this system there are laws of the universe that we percieve like gravity which only demands mass to operate, and there are other laws which only apply to those that are of a certain stature. The second class of laws are just as unchanging as the first but they are also much more demanding. ( Again, if you act in a responsible way you will have a different outcome)

So to in Parashat Noah. The Midas Harachamim of Parashat Noah is that since Noah was at a level of human perfection it meant that he was subject to additional laws.

"And the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And it repented the LORD that He had made man on the earth, and it grieved Him at His heart. 7 And the LORD said: 'I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and creeping thing, and fowl of the air; for it repenteth Me that I have made them.' 8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD. "

The Midat Harachamim is not that G' changes and allows something to slip by. Rather, the creation of the system of Law in such a way that it has tiers, laws which apply to everyone, and laws which apply to smaller subsets is Midat Harachamim. Both Midat Hadin and Midat Harachamim are systems of cause and effect.The Creator Does Not change, Man changes and if he does he can become subject to new effects, the creation of the World in such a way to provide for Man's perfection is ( as I understand it) Midat harachamim.

Dialogues with a Modern Stoic

Recently I came across a website run by a " modern stoic". Amazed that there were individuals out there who considered themselves stoics, I sought to contact him and start a dialogue. I mentioned that I was a student in a yeshiva and thought that the stoic philosophy was very similar to the words of chazal in many cases.
In his reply email the gentleman asked me the following question.
" Do you believe that your god really cares about the extraordinary detail that goes into daily practice, especially on the Sabbath, of course. And if so, why?

I guess what I'm really asking is how much is divine expectation versus Rabbinical invention?"

The following is my letter in response to his question. Keep in mind that I was trying to avoid extreme detail and felt it was necessary for the sake of him understanding my basic point, to sacrifice some detail and clarity.In addition there are certain lines which seem redundant, again, my concern was to make sure that I communicated my point and as such there are certain repetitions.


First off, I just wanted to say again how thankful I am that we can engage in an honest and open investigation. It is yet another gift that I have been granted in this life. Please forgive me for lack of style, and if it seems that I am quoting from your question or from a source I apologize, it is merely for my organization.

You ask, “. Do you believe that your god really cares about the extraordinary detail that goes into daily practice, especially on the Sabbath, of course. And if so, why?” You go on further and ask, “I guess what I'm really asking is how much is divine expectation versus Rabbinical invention? I probably shouldn't compare your situation with the Catholic faith, but it's the first to come to mind: only fish on Fridays, celibate priests, infallible popes, birth control prohibition, et cetera. Is there a substantive difference between Catholic prohibitions and those of the Orthodox Jewish faith?

I think you are asking two separate questions. As I understand it, your first question pertains to the Jewish view of G-d, the proper service of him and the reasons for said service. The second question seems to seek a clarification of the system of Jewish law how it is derived, instituted and practiced. I will attempt to answer the questions in order.

Do I believe that my God really cares about the extraordinary detail that goes into my daily practice? No. Unequivocally God does not care. God does not need my service to him. God does not need anyone’s service nor does he need any of his creations for anything. To attribute a need to God would be to attribute a lack to him, he needs neither me nor my service .God is independent of his creations. The question then is, “if it is so that God does not want my service, then what is the purpose of my observance?” I believe that the answer to this question will come from an understanding of what Torah is and what its relationship to man is.
Man
As you know the essence of Man is his faculty of reason. The verse in Genesis 1 “27 And God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them”, is interpreted by the Talmudic scholars to be referring to the human intellect. Our purpose in life is to use our intellect to perceive reality and to live in accordance with it. This is I believe the same as the stoic adjuration to live in line with nature. What then is this system of Torah that has occupied the minds and governed the lives of Jews for the last 5 thousand years, and how does it relate to mans nature?

Torah
Torah is an intellectual system of life given to Man through the nation of Israel. The Torah exists in two media, written and oral. Neither is complete without the other and both were given to a mass of people at Sinai. Encompassed in the Torah are the commandments ( Mitzvos). The commandments (all six hundred and thirteen) are tools that God has given us to perfect our minds. Each individual commandment is aimed at removing a false notion of the universe and instilling the correct idea.
It is now possible to answer the question that we had asked earlier on, namely if God does not want my service what is the point of my service? The Torah is an intellectual system that was given to man to perfect himself. Each law in the Torah is designed with human nature in mind to guide Man to his ultimate potential. When we engage in the law we are not serving God for hopes of appeasing him or satisfying a desire . Rather what we aim at with our dedication to the law is a fulfillment of Man’s mission to live in line with his intellectual nature, and perceive the reality of the Universe as it really is and not as my psyche wishes it to be.

As per the second part of your question, I would point you to three verses in Deuteronomy ( Chapter 30:12-14). 12 It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say: 'Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, and make us to hear it, that we may do it?' 13 Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say: 'Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, and make us to hear it, that we may do it?' 14 But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it. In terms of Rabbinic “invention” or the relationship between what was given and what we do , these verses stand out as the rubric. The words of God himself are quite clear. “It is not in the heavens”, the system of Torah was given over as an intellectual system for man and it is he who must master the law and interpret it. The rules and guidelines were given over to man and it is Man’s job to make sure it is kept. This is where the perception of “Rabbinic invention” comes in. It is true that there are rules or extensions of rules that were not given to Moses at Sinai. However, “ it is very nigh unto you” ,one must note that the very system of interpretation was within the system given to Moses at Sinai .
As I stated previously the Torah is an intellectual system which serves to perfect our lives. Again God does not need me or my service. The system of Torah was given to humanity as the tool for engaging the mind and accepting the reality of the laws of creation. It is up to the experts in the legal system to apply and extrapolate its principles. In that way there is no such thing as “Rabbinic invention” because the Torah given by God demands that there is a constant engagement of legal experts to properly understand it.

To recap, Man was given the Torah, a system of intellectual and moral perfection, not for Gods satisfaction ( which is impossible), but only so that Man can reach his potential and recognize the reality of the Universe. Man can only achieve true happiness, true success if he recognizes and lives in line with his nature, as Aurelius states in Book two of the Meditations. “This thou must always bear in mind, what is the nature of the whole, and what is my nature, and how this is related to that, and what kind of a part it is of what kind of a whole; and that there is no one who hinders thee from always doing and saying the things which are according to the nature of which thou art a part”. This is the goal of Torah and this is the philosophy of the Stoic masters as I see it.

Man- Intellect, Instinct, Imagination

I have the tremendous bracha to have just started a new chavrusah with my friend Jonny. The topic of our study is Mitzvos and the Mishneh Torah. Our first hour of study brought out some amazing ideas and I thought it would be appropriate to share them , perhaps as the first in a series of posts resulting from this new endeavor.


Since our chavrusah is to focus on the area of Mitzvos as a system, we thought it would be beneficial to start out by defining some basic ideas that are relevant to mitzvos. Today we took on the concept of " Man".


What is Man?


This is a question that is all to hastily answered by most people. The immediate answer could be, "man is an animal". This is flawed because it fails to capture man's essence. Another answer could be " Man is intellect", this is flawed because man is not purely intellect. A more subtle approach would be the synthesis of these two catchphrases into " Man is a rational animal".This answer is also flawed but for a different reason than the two previous. This answer is flawed because the term " rational animal" is so in need of definition as to be practically meaningless.


In order to properly formulate the definition we first examined "Animal".


When an animal, say a cougar wakes up in the morning, it has immediate instinctual drives.The cougar is hungry so it goes out to the field and spots antelope.The cougars instinct tells him that this antelope is a food source. The cougar pounces on its prey , kills it, eats it and satisfies its instinctual need for food. When the cougar needs to mate, it again goes to the field spots a female cougar utilizes it to his procreative need and satisfies his instinct. When the cougar needs shade it finds a tree and rests beneath it allowing the boughs to keep the sun's rays from causing harm.The animal is capable of seeing good for himself. The cougar can see a shady spot and instinct will guide it to rest, a plump antelope to eat, and a young female to sport with.


How does the instinctual gratification of the Cougar compare to that of Man?


When Man wakes up in the morning he is also hungry. He can gather food, he understands what is and is not food. Similarly he needs to procreate so he looks for and finds a mate. He relates to the instinctual needs similarly to the cougar. He needs to eat, he needs to procreate, he needs shelter. Man also has another element though. When he gazes on an apple tree, he does not just see food, he does not just see shade. There is something beyond the immediate instinct that Man has the ability to comprehend. Man can see the apple tree recognizes it as a source of physical good and then can make a breakthrough. All of a sudden he can see the tree and place it into a general category of "Plant" and can fit that into part of the overall ecosystem. He can perceive the tree as both food and as part of a universal category.



This ability to see the world both in terms of immediate instinct and universal categories is our working definition for " intellect". When the cougar wakes up he immediately starts collecting data and uses it to satisfy his instinctual needs. When Man wakes up he collects data for his instinctual needs and also uses that data and fits it into universal categories. He sees the world as both individual circumstances for fulfilling his instinct and a unified order of nature.



We now have a clear distinction between Man and Animal.The question now is how does the Man take the data that he has collected and use said data?

As the sensory data is collected it is acted on by the " imagination". The Imagination is the part of man that collects the sensory data and orders it into essences and accidents based on the frameworks of either the Instinct or the Intellect.For instance the Man can see a bone lying on the ground. His imagination will then categorize this bone as " essentially a weapon with which I can fend off predators"( an example of the Imagination viewing instinctual essences and accidents), or he can see this bone and view it as " essentially a part of the skeleton of an antelope" and intellectually fit it into the universal system of nature.

To recap we have three aspects, Instinct- the part of man that tells him he is hungry,he needs shade, he needs reproduction.Intellect- the part that puts the data that his senses collect into categorical terms, views everything he comes in contact with as part of a universal. Imagination- the part that takes the data and views it in terms of essences and accidents of both the Instinctual and Intellectual.

To be continued....

Ra'avad on teshuva 3:15 continued

As I stated in the previous post, it is more than clear that the Ra'avad held from a rational mesora . However, there is still the main question that I had raised which has yet to be answered. The question, in summation is, why would the Ra'avad use the phrase Gedolim vtuvim memenu to refer to those who believed in a physical G, if in fact he rejects that notion.


In the kesef mishna, Rav Yosef Karo takes up our question:
כתב הראב"ד "ולמה קרה לזה מין וכו' .המשבשות את הדעות עכ"ל.
ויש לתמוה על פה קדוש איך יקרא לאומרים שהוא בעל גוף ובעל תמונה גדולים וטובים ממנו . ואפשר שעיקר הנוסחא כמו שכתוב בספר העיקרים פ"ב ממ"א וז"ל. א"א אע"פ שעיקר האמונה כן הוא המאמין היותו גוף מצד תפיסתו לשונות הפסוקים והמדרשות כפשטן אין ראוי לקרותו מין .


"There is astonishment at the holy mouth [ the Ra'avad] how can he call those who say that G' ahs a body or image " greater and better than he"? It is possible that the essential textual version is the same as is written in the sefer haikkarim : "Abraham states, even though the essential conviction is thus ( that G' is non physical) , one who believes that G' has a body because of the language of the verses and the literal interpretation of the midrashim , it is not appropriate to call him a min."

I was recently made aware of a shiur given by my Rosh Yeshiva, Rav Y. Chait regarding contradictory beliefs in which he mentions this Ra'avad. The shiur can be accessed at http://www.ybt.org/Sunday03092003.ram.

The main point that I have gathered from the shiur regarding our Ra'avad is one which deserves a post in its own right.

The real question here is when we are confronted with language from chazal or other chachamim that semingly contradicts our Yisodos, what should our response be? Our Ra'avad is a prime example of this. Are we to view the problem language as a claim against our already established principles , or is there another reaction.According to Rabbi Chait the appropriate reaction to seemingly contradictory language in the corpus of Torah sheba'al peh is the reaction of the kesef mishna to the Ra'avad. The Kesef Mishna did not read the Ra'avad and question his yisodos. The reaction of Rav Yosef Karo was to utterly reject the problem language as invalid and suggest an appropriate replacement. The response to problem chazals is not to run away screaming that the Yisodos are uprooted because of whatever problem language appears. Rather, the response to a problem language is to clamly return to your knowledge of the foundational principles of yehaduth and to accept that the way in which you are understanding that language is impossible within the mesora and to simply reject the problem statement.This is not to say that you cannot try to resolve the problem, if there is a sevara that can preserve the language and is within the framework of Torah then congratulations you have fought a war in which the truth has prevailed. However, if you cannot salvage that particular language then be satisfied that you were able to determine a conflict between what you were reading and the Yisodos and know that the Yisodos are true and there is no statement that will shake you of that notion.

In conclusion, whenever we are faced with a seemingly problematic statement within the mesora there can be but one reaction. To retreat back to the sound foundations of yehaduth that have been rationally proven , and not put stock in languages that conflict with what we already know is true.

Rav Abraham ben David of Posquieres and Hilchoth Teshuvah 3:15 ( 3:7)

משוך חסדך, ליודעיך; וצדקתך, לישרי לב
I often come in contact with people who claim that there is evidence to say that the belief in the physicality of G' is a valid position within the Mesorah. Often these people point to the hasagoth of the Ra'avad on the Mishneh Torah as evidence to their claims. Specifically the Ra'avad on Hilchoth Teshuvah chapter 3 halacha 15 (7) dealing with the classification of certain types of heretics.Fortunate are those who have the opportunity to learn from chachamim and know with utmost conviction that this is not so...

The Sources

Mishneh Torah Hilchoth Teshuvah chapter 3 halacha 15 ( 7):

טו [ז] חמישה הן הנקראין מינים: האומר שאין שם אלוה, ואין לעולם מנהיג; והאומר שיש שם מנהיג, אבל הם שניים או יתר; והאומר שיש שם ריבון אחד, אלא שהוא גוף ובעל תמונה; וכן האומר שאינו לבדו ראשון וצור לכול; וכן העובד אלוה זולתו, כדי להיות מליץ בינו ובין ריבון העולמים. כל אחד מחמישה אלו מין


"There are five who are called "Min": One who says that there is no G' and the world has no conductor, So too the one who says that there is a conductor but there are two or more, And one who says that there is one master but he has a body and image

Ra'avad
והואמר שיש שם רבון אהד אלא שהוא גוף ובעל תמונה. א"א ולמה קרא לזה מין וכמה גדולים וטובים ממנו הלכו בזו המחשבה לפי מה שראו במקראות ויותר ממה שראו בדברי האגדות המשבשות את הדעות

"one who says that there is a master but he has a body or an image. Abraham states: And why does he call this a min? How many people , greater and better than he went after this idea because of what they saw in the verses and the words of the aggadoth which cause mistakes in the deoth. "
The Questions
This Ra'avad clearly poses some problems.Firstly, what is the Ra'avad's use of " how many people greater and better than he". If as I am supposing, the Ra'avad really agrees with the Rambam then how can someone who has a false notion of G' be called greater than the Rambam who held the correct notion?In addition the shitta itself has to be understood.The proponents of the argument that the Ra'avad disagreed with the real idea of yichudo can merely point to the fact that those who do hold by a physical G are seemingly doing nothing wrong according to the language of this Ra'avad .I think that this is the crux of the argument to say that in reality the Ra'avad would ( G' forbid) tolerate the concept of a physical G'.

The response

I would be the first to agree that this is something that must be answered. Could it really be that one of the chachmei haMesorah maintains this? I have two points from which I will attack this problem. The first is within the Ra'avad himself, from his own language that he uses in this halacha. The second also the Ra'avad himself , but this time it is in what he does not say.

If you are familiar with the Ra'avad and his critiques of the Mishneh Torah , you know that if he disagrees with something he will be more than open in saying so. This is true to the extent that sometimes it appears as if the Ra'avad is harshly attacking the Rambam. In truth this is merely his way of emphasizing the problem as he sees it. It is from this awareness of the Ra'avad that a very compelling answer to our probem appears.

As I just stated the style of the Ra'avad in the Hasagot al Mishneh Torah, is not to sit quietly if he disagrees with what the gedolei hamechabrim is saying. The Rambam did not scare the Ra'avad into submission. So it is clear to me that we can deduce a simple rule about the Ra'avad. If he does not mention any criticism then it must mean that he agrees with the Rambam . If we keep this in mind then all we have to do to prove that not only did the Ra'avad not disagree with the idea of yichudo brought down in the Mishneh Torah but in fact he agreed fully, is look at Yisodei haTorah. This is the section that the Rambam has of the fundamentals of yehaduth. Included in these perakim is the concept of Yichud hashem, Yirah, Ahava and Yedias hashem. If there was ever a time to voice your opposition to those concepts as championed by Maimonides , it is in this section. Yet we find something very curious. There is not a single word from the Ra'avad on any thing until the sixth chapter of Yisodei haTorah , which is already passed the topics of metaphysics and Physics. So the Ra'avad has admitted his position through silence.

Furthermore, if one were to reject my assumed principle that silence for the Ra'avad is an admission of agreement, then we have but to look at the words that he does say. Let us now take a closer look at the words of ,the Ilan Gadol,Rabbi Abraham Ben David of Posquieres .

והואמר שיש שם רבון אהד אלא שהוא גוף ובעל תמונה. א"א ולמה קרא לזה מין וכמה גדולים וטובים ממנו הלכו בזו המחשבה לפי מה שראו במקראות ויותר ממה שראו בדברי האגדות המשבשות את הדעות
First off , the Ra'avad states that these unfortunates only hold this notion because of what they have read in the verses of Tanach. This could make the argument stronger after all if the tanach has anthropomorphisms then perhaps that is a valid idea.However, if you look at the last three words , I believe the entire argument crumbles like the bones of the wicked.These three are, " hameshabshoth et hadeoth" which means roughly " that confuse the ideational principles".This is the Ra'avad himself telling us that it is true

If the Ra'avad maintained as some would fancy, then there is no logical explanation for the use of " hamishabshoth et hadeoth". If the correct idea was the physicality of G according to the Ra'avad then why on earth would he mention that these notions are arrived at through pesukim and aggadoth which end up being meshabesh people's ideas.

It is interesting to note one other thing which can be learned from this hasagah of the Ra'avad. Not only do the last three words reveal the Ra'avads true thoughts on the subject, they also reveal at least in part , his concept of the aggadoth. The use of meshabesh hadeoth implies that the Ra'avad understood the system of aggadoth as something which must be rationally understood in order for it to benefit ones deoth. ( see essay on Aggadoth by Rabbeinu Abraham ibn Harambam)