Our Gemara on Amud Beis discusses which kinds of changes to an object constitute enough transformation so that even a thief acquires it. (The thief, of course, must still compensate the owner. However since the object was so dramatically changed, it no longer has any connection to its past and he does not have to return the physical object.) The change must be irreversible in order for it to reach this threshold of becoming a new object.

 

Using this logic the Gemara rules:

 

One who robbed another of earth and fashioned it into a brick, has not acquired it due to the change. What is the reason for this? It is that he can crush and ground the brick to convert it back into earth. By contrast, if he robbed another of a brick, and by crushing it turned it into earth, he has acquired it due to the change. If you say: Perhaps he will return it and fashion it into a brick? This is a different brick, and a new entity has entered into existence.

 

This clever distinction is based on the idea that dirt is dirt, but a crafted object is different each time. Thus, even in regard to bricks, which are made relatively uniform, each one is seen as a new manifestation. 

 

The Shalah (Sha’ar Haosiyos, Emes Ve Emunah) uses this idea to explain a puzzling line in the Yigdal liturgy, which poetically delineates the Rambam’s Thirteen Principles of Faith. When describing God’s incorporeality, Yigdal states:

 

אֵין לוֹ דְמוּת הַגּוּף וְאֵינוֹ גוּף, לֹא נַעֲרֹךְ אֵלָיו קְדֻשָּׁתוֹ:

 

He has no form of a body, nor a body, His holiness is beyond comparison.

 

How does this ordering make sense? If God has no form of a body, surely He has no body?

 

To understand the Shalah, we must learn a little about the physics that was predominantly held by the Ancient Greeks, Rishonim, and Acharonim until the modern scientific era. Objects in this world are composed of matter and form.  The form is the abstract idea of the object, a quality or shape, such as if a formed object resembles a triangle or it has certain properties such as firmness.  Those come from the abstract form, which is a universal that is perfect (unlike a real life triangle, which may only be approximately a triangle.  Objects are physical matter that has a form imposed on it.  Think of it as the software that controls the hardware. If you follow this reasoning, the form is a separate entity, seemingly more abstract. Thus if God’s incorporeality extends to even having no form, surely he has no physical body. (See Rambam, Hilchos Deos 4:6.)

 

However, from our Gemara, we see a different perspective and hierarchy of matter.  The form is more transient than the matter.  The dirt (matter) can be made into a brick (Form), but that is temporary and it can revert back to dirt. From this perspective, Matter comes first and is primary, and Form second. Thus, according to the Shalah, the correct philosophical understanding of this stanza in Yigdal is as follows:

 

God is incorporeal, to such an extent that (1) He does not have any form, and (2) He is not even composed of an enduring basic substance. Another way of putting it is, God is so not-comparable to anything physical, not only does He not have any particular form, He is not made of ANYTHING. 

 

When preparing for a prayer mindset, it is easy to get stuck in only the anthropomorphisms of God being great and powerful.  To truly experience connection, and the letting go of self necessary for deep prayer and attachment to Hashem, one must also reflect on the absolute beyondness of God, His non-quantifiable nor comprehensible nature inspires a form of awe that liberates the person from the petty concerns of self. This emotional and cognitive process is described in Deos (ibid 4:12.)