Tzelem Elokim: Image or Imagery?[1]

by David Silverberg

"The Image of God" ("Tzelem Elokim") appears to be a theological oxymoron. Already the Rambam, in the seventh Halakhah of his Yad Hachazakah, emphasizes the impossibility of ascribing any physical characteristics to God, and in the eighth, proceeds to cite several pesukim establishing this fundamental tenet of Judaism. Thus, any "Divine Image" which we ascribe to Man must, by necessity, refer to a quality beyond anything corporeal. Interestingly enough, the possibility of concluding that God possesses a physical form led the authors of the Septuagint to translate the pasuk as "God created Man in an image and form," omitting the mention of God in the context of the word "tzelem."[2] Indeed, the sensitivity of the issue sparked a controversy during the time of Rav Yosef Karo in the sixteenth century. The debate surrounded the nusach sefard version of the avodah prayer recited on Yom Kippur, which refers to man as "golem tavnitcha," which may connote an ascription of physical qualities to God.[3]

Yet, at least three traditional sources seem to suggest a visual similarity between Man and God. In Vayikra Rabba 34, Hillel considers the mizvah of hygienic bathing to be important enough to be among the last he wished to fulfill before his death, to the astonishment of his students. He responds to their amazement by drawing an equally astounding parallel between God's resemblance to Man and that of a King to the statues carved in his image. According to Hillel, Man is literally the spitting image of God, and therefore honors God by maintaining a tidy and well kept appearance. Similarly, Rashi[4] regards the prohibition of leaving a dead body hanging overnight as one which maintains God's honor which, as a result of Man's likeness to Him, would be undermined by a public display of a corpse. Finally, the Gemara[5] relates that when Rabbi Bena'a approached the burial site of Adam after having visited that of Yaakov, he heard a heavenly voice prohibiting him from gazing at God's image. These sources challenge us with the tantalizing implication that human beings look like God. Must we restrict our understanding of these sources to a strictly allegorical level, that Man's resemblance to God is merely described metaphorically as an actual replica, or do the principles of Judaism allow for a more literal conception of Man's "Image of God"?

Metaphysical vs. Physical

One major group of commentators and Jewish thinkers associate the Tzelem Elokim with nonphysical aspects of the human being. At the forefront of this camp stands the Rambam, who views the advanced human intellect ("hasagah sichlit") as the point of similarity between Mankind and the Almighty.[6] In Hilkhot Yesodei Hatorah[7], the Rambam adds that this facet of Man resembles the angels, who also possess this ability to think and reason in abstract concepts. Thus, when Hashem announces, "Let us make Man in our image," He is, as it were, consulting with the malakhei hashareit, notifying them of His intention to create Man in their own image. In fact, several mefarshim translate the word "elokim" in our pasuk as angels, effectively eliminating the need to resolve the inherent difficulty of divine characteristics applied to Man[8]. Tzelem Elokim refers not to Man's resemblance to God, but rather to his angelic quality - specifically his intellectual capabilities.

Variations of the Rambam's definition include both narrower and broader denotations of Tzelem Elokim. After an etymological discussion of the word "tzelem," Haketav Vehakabalah concludes that Tzelem Elokim refers to the invisible and intangible side of humans, not merely their intellectual capacity. Similarly, albeit in a more philosophical context, Rav Soloveitchik is cited[9] as viewing Tzelem Elokim as the general spiritual personality of a person which frequently engages in confrontation with his physical nature.[10]

Alternatively, we may view Tzelem Elokim not as pointing to Man's general intelligence, but rather, to a single manifestation of his advanced insight and intuition. According to one suggestion offered by Rav Tzadok Hakohen of Lublin[11], what constitutes the image of God is Man's recognition of his origin. Although all creatures, both animate and inanimate, originate from God, the human being is unique in his awareness of his source. This realization results in a particularly close connection between Man and God, to the extent that we are asserted to have been created in His image.

Elsewhere in his works, however, Rav Tzadok explains Tzelem Elokim as a different particular feature of the human intellect, that of free will[12]. Man resembles God in his unique power of decision-making[13]. A precedent for this opinion may be found in one of the interpretations raised by the Chizkuni, which translates "elokim" as "judge."[14] Perhaps the relevance of this equation between Man and magistrate lies in Man's ability and responsibility to both discern and decide between right and wrong, and his freedom to act according to his own judgment. Free will means that Man is capable of weighing the consequences of his actions and acting accordingly, just as a judge, considering all sides of an argument, then decides the fate of his defendant based upon his own logic.

Domination and Creativity

In truth, the Chizkuni's association of Tzelem Elokim with Man's resemblance to a judge lends itself to another interpretation, which introduces us to the second category of definitions of Tzelem Elokim. Making decisions based on a coherent thought process constitutes just one important defining characteristic of a judge. However, an adjucator's significance lies not only in his power to reach conclusions but also in the ramifications of these decisions. Questions of life or death and prosperity or poverty are decided based on the results of his calculations. Similarly, Man is a powerful being, possessing the faculties to build and destroy, to save and to kill. Indeed, many commentaries adopt the view that Man's Tzelem Elokim is his potential to conquer and control, in a sense to rule the world in a manner similar to that of his Creator[15].

The advantage of such an interpretation from a contextual exegetical perspective is clear. When Hashem first discloses His intention to create Adam, He emphasizes Man's quality of domination in conjunction with his being created in the image of God: "Let us make Mankind in our image, after our likeness, and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle..." In addition, from both a rational and theological point of view, this opinion appears quite appealing. If there does exist an intersection of human and divine qualities, perhaps the most detectable and discernible characteristics common to Man and God relate to the power of control and domination.

A variation of this understanding of Tzelem Elokim serves as the central theme in Rav Soloveitchik's development of the typological "Adam I" in The Lonely Man of Faith[16]. Whereas the aforementioned opinions focus on Adam's ability to exert force on the rest of creation, the Rav concentrates on Man's creativity and manipulation of God's creation to further develop his own:

There is no doubt that the term "image of God" in the first account [of creation] refers to Man's inner charismatic endowment as a creative being. Man's likeness to God expresses itself in Man's striving and ability to become a creator. Adam the first is overwhelmed by one quest, namely, to harness and dominate the elemental natural forces and to put them at his disposal.

While in this particular section the Rav perceives Man's power of, and inclination toward, creativity as a point of similarity with God, elsewhere Rav Soloveitchik appears to take this idea one step further. The relationship between the concepts "Man" and "God" may be an equation rather than a simile. In Yemei Zikaron[17], Rav Soloveitchik is cited as understanding the Tzelem Elokim as a derivation of the principle "shelucho shel adam kemoto," that a messenger attains the status of his dispatc. Adam was bidden to complete God's creation, to serve the function of God by perpetuating beriat haolam. Man does not merely resemble God, rather he steps into His shoes and fills His role. This approach to Tzelem Elokim can be traced back to as early a source as the Zohar Chadash[18], which likens God's charge to Man to that of a king who assigns his officer the same civil responsibilities that the king himself had once assumed. Thus "tzelem" does not denote God's image, but rather God's role, which Man accepts from his inception.

Man: God's Real Image?

The common denominator of all the aforementioned explanations is that they don't relate to Man's physical being as his Tzelem Elokim. The "Divine Image" is taken to reflect either Man's abstract, spiritual essence, his potential as conqueror and creator, or his role vis-a-vis the world. The final category of interpretations we will examine attempts to understand the Tzelem Elokim in terms of Man's exterior being while not undermining the fundamental axiom prohibiting any association of a physical form with God.

Rabbeinu Bachya ibn Pakuda offers one solution to this apparent contradiction. Basing himself on Kabbalah, Rabbeinu Bachya presents a detailed correspondence between various organs of the human body and the ten "sefirot," or emanations which God undergoes, as it were, before revealing His presence in this world. Each characteristic of Man's physical being represents one such emanation. Thus, Rabbeinu Bachya solves the Tzelem Elokim anomaly by reinterpreting "elokim" as the manner in which we perceive God rather than God Himself. Although Man certainly does not and cannot look like God, he can, and does symbolize the method in which God appears to him.[19]

Obviously, even this approach steers clear from the suggestion that Man looks like God, and indeed any commentary raising such a possibility would require elucidation. This brings us to perhaps the most problematic interpretation of Tzelem Elokim - that of Rashi[20]. Rashi translates "tzelem" as "defus," a mold. The creation of Adam himself was preceded by the construction of a special mold which God used when forming Man. Thus the human being does not possess a Tzelem Elokim; the tzelem is a mere object God produced to facilitate the creation of Adam[21]. But Rashi then adds that this mold itself was formed in the image of its Creator. The term Rashi uses in describing the similarity between God and the defus is "deyukan," which appears later in Rashi's commentary to Bereishit[22], in reference to Yosef's visualizing his father's image as Potifar's wife attempts to seduce him. In that context, "deyukan" clearly denotes an actual image, and so we may assume to be the implication here, as well. How can Rashi imply an actual visual resemblance between God and Man?[23]

The likely solution to the mystery of Rashi presents us with the prospect of a literal Tzelem Elokim. One commentary[24] suggests that Rashi maintains that the defus with which Man was created looks, not like God Himself, but like the representation of God as seen by the prophets -an interpretation of Tzelem Elokim already raised by the Ba'alei Hatosafot.[25] There should be no need to mention that the figure which appears to the nevi'im[26] is not God's actual image. On the other hand, it is more than a representative; it is a representation. The Maharal elaborates on this notion as the true meaning of Tzelem Elokim:

...the interpretation is not that God possesses an image or form, for this is not the case at all. Rather, the verse informs us that when it comes to allude to what exists of God in a physical figure, it will illustrate a standing figure. Although certainly one cannot ascribe any figure, Heaven forbid, to Hashem...nevertheless what exists of God is illustrated through the physical Man.[27]

Thus, according to the Maharal, we can indeed speak of a physical correspondence between Man and God, so long as we differentiate between God Himself and His physical representation. Man looks like God in the only way possible, namely, by resembling the image which God assumes, as it were, when He is represented in a material form.

Although the Maharal's definition of Tzelem Elokim contrasts sharply with those already discussed, to a large extent he is still dependent upon other interpretations. The distinction between God's actual essence and His representation helps to define Tzelem Elokim, but it does not clarify its significance. Why does Man look like God's symbolic representation? Why does the account of Creation find it necessary to emphasize this characteristic of Man? Unquestionably, the external resemblance reflects an internal likeness between the human and his Creator. Indeed, the Maharal himself alludes to the approach focusing on domination as the point of convergence between Adam and God. The correspondence between Man's exterior and God's physical representation serves only to symbolize a deeper and more complex relationship between Man and God.

Thus, three general directions emerge from our discussion. The first two share a metaphoric outlook on the idea of Tzelem Elokim. According to these contentions, "image" in this context allegorizes the intersection of Divine and human characteristics - either metaphysical qualities or the capability to control and create. By contrast, the final approach maintains the literal meaning of the term, but suggests an alternate connotation of the word "elokim," namely, God's physical representation, as opposed to Hashem Himself.