There’s a dispute between the Titans of Jewish philosophy about the extent of the clarity provided truth prophecy.  I’ve posted the two sources from Rambam and Ramban here:.

The comparison between Rambam and Ramban reveals a divide between the philosophical and mystical schools of Jewish thought in understanding how to empathize with Hashem. Moshe Rabbeinu is seeking to connect through a cognitive and emotional approach to Hashem, and that’s what our masters explore in their commentary. Rambam, writing in Shmoneh Perakim (Eight Chapters), treats the narrative as an epistemological quest for intellectual perfection. For him, Moshe’s request to “behold G-d’s glory” was the pinnacle of a man who had already perfected his moral character and removed all mental “partitions”, the mechitzos Rambam discussed. Moshe Rabbeinu sought to comprehend Hashem’s true essence; what he calls “beholding the face”; which represents a knowledge so unique that the subject cannot be confused with any other being. However, Rambam concludes that this is physically impossible; as long as the human intellect is housed in a material body, it remains a transparent obstruction that limits one to seeing G-d’s “back,” or His actions in the natural world.

In contrast, Ramban approaches the text through the lens of Providence and the “secrets of the Torah.” Rather than focusing on Moshe Rabbeinu’s personal intellectual capacity, Ramban examines the specific level of Divine manifestation that would lead the Jewish people. He enters into a rigorous debate with Rashi and Ibn Ezra over whether Hashem would lead the people through an angel or His own “Presence.” To Ramban, this dialogue is a high-stakes negotiation where Moshe refuses to move the nation unless Hashem, manifest in His Own Name, accompanies them intimately. While Rambam sees a scientist or a philosopher hitting the ceiling of human comprehension, Ramban sees a spiritual leader securing a specific “Attribute of Mercy” to override the “Attribute of Justice.”

These two also diverge in their interpretation of the “Face” and “Back” imagery. Rambam uses these terms as metaphors for the clarity of information: seeing a face provides certain recognition, while seeing a back leaves room for doubt. For him, “seeing the back” refers to the limited way humans understand Hashem through the laws of nature. Ramban, however, views these terms as ontological realities. “Face” refers to God’s direct, unmediated presence, while “Back” refers to a lower level of emanation or a specific messenger that carries the Holy Name (which is identified back in his commentary to Ex. 20:21). For Ramban, the barrier isn’t just Moshe’s physical brain; it is the specific way Hashem chooses to govern the world and relate to the Jewish people.

Ultimately, the focus of their commentaries reflects their broader goals. Rambam focuses on the individual journey, using Moshe Rabbeinu as the ultimate model for the “perfection of the soul” (see Yesodei HaTorah 1:10) and the limits of human reason. He views the height of prophecy as a peak of intellectual achievement. Ramban, however, focuses on the national destiny. He pays close attention to the shift from singular to plural language (“carry us up”) to show that Moshe Rabbeinu’s primary concern was the collective survival of Israel. He argues that Moshe successfully petitioned for a “Face to Face” relationship with the Divine, ensuring that the nation would be guided by a power far greater than a mere angelic intermediary.

Let’s now try to understand the deeper idea of seeing Hashem from the “back”:

״וַהֲסִרֹתִי אֶת כַּפִּי וְרָאִיתָ אֶת אֲחֹרָי״. אָמַר רַב חָנָא בַּר בִּיזְנָא, אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן חֲסִידָא: מְלַמֵּד שֶׁהֶרְאָה הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְמֹשֶׁה קֶשֶׁר שֶׁל תְּפִילִּין.

What did Moses see? It is said: “And I will remove My hand, and you will see My back, but My face you will not see” (Exodus 33:23). Rav Ḥana bar Bizna said in the name of Rabbi Shimon Ḥasida, the expression: “And you will see My back,” should be understood as follows: This teaches that the Holy One, Blessed be He, Who, as mentioned above, wears phylacteries, showed him the knot of the phylacteries of His head, which is worn on the back of the head.

The Gemara in Berakhot 7a states that God showed Moses the “knot of His tefillin” (the Kesher shel Tefillin) when He allowed him to see His “back.” This image serves as a staying point for the two different methodologies of Rambam and Ramban in our Parsha

For Ramban: Hashem having a “head” or “tefillin” is strictly metaphorical, as he maintains that Hashem has no body or physical properties. The tefillin, which contain verses about His unity and His relationship with Israel, represent the governance of the universe. Seeing the “knot” on the back of the head signifies that Moshe Rabbeinu was granted an understanding of the after-effects of His existence. Just as a knot is a secondary attachment to a person, the natural laws and the chain of cause and effect are secondary to His Main Essence. Moshe could not see the “Face” (the Cause), but he was granted a perfect intellectual mapping of the “Knot” (the Effect), meaning he understood how all of creation is tied together and governed by Divine wisdom.

Ramban views this Gemara through the lens of mystical emanation. In his commentary, the “back” is not just a lack of clarity, but a specific level of the Divine hierarchy. The tefillin represent the “cleaving” (dveikut) between Hashem and Israel. By showing Moshe the knot of the tefillin, He was showing him the point where the Infinite connects to the finite world. The “knot” is the structural link that binds the Divine Presence to the Jewish people.,For Ramban, this was God’s way of confirming to Moses that even if His full Essence is beyond reach, the “bond” (the knot) between Him and Israel is real, permanent, and visible to the highest level of prophecy.

In the mystical framework established by the Ramban, the citation regarding the “knot of the tefillin” (from Berakhot 7a) represents the visual manifestation of God’s “back.” While Maimonides views this knot as a metaphor for the laws of nature, the Ramban interprets it as a specific, accessible level of Divine reality. By showing Moses the “knot,” God was revealing the structural link where the Infinite connects to the finite world and the Jewish people.

The Ramban characterizes this exchange not as a philosophical lesson, but as an explanation of the “secrets of the Torah” (sitreí ha-Torah). In this context, the “knot” is the point where the Divine Attributes are “tied” together to interact with human history. By seeing the knot, Moshe Rabbeinu was granted a vision of the the relatable connection of the Covenant that ensures Hashem’s presence remains with Israel despite their sins.

Furthermore, the Ramban’s focus on the “measure which is inclusive of the attribute of mercy” explains why the “knot” is so significant. The knot of the tefillin binds the head-piece to the person; similarly, this mystical vision showed Moshe how the “Presence” (Panim) is bound to the nation. This vision served as the Divine “Yes” to Moshe’s demand that Israel be led with the same “great power and mighty hand” that initiated the Exodus, rather than being left to the “stringent attribute of justice” or a distant angelic intermediary.

For the Rambam, the knot of the tefillin is a lesson in Metaphysics: it is the “backside” of reality, the laws of nature that point toward a Creator we cannot fully see or fully appreciate His decisions. We cannot empathize with a Being so beyond our ability to cognize. At the other end, for Ramban, it is a lesson in Relational Mysticism: it is the anchor point of the mind and soul’s connection to the Divine. One sees a mind understanding a system; the other sees a prophet witnessing a bond.

For further review: how would each of these approaches appreciate the visions seen by later prophets? How does it a prophet’s ability to understand what is going on and they’re meant to learn?

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)