 Once the religious and legal basis for reason's denial of divine corporeality is established, the sage does not hesitate to offer a speculative argument of his own. He presents it in the a fortioriform often used to interpret the Law and argues that if we maintain that many of God's creations are above corporeality, “like the rational soul, which is what man is in reality,” how shall we not maintain that God is also above corporeality? Using Moses as an example, he notes that the part of Moses that speaks to, understands, and governs his people is not his tongue, brain, or heart, which are merely organs and instruments belonging to him, but rather his rational soul, which is what he really is. On the basis of this clearly Platonic conception of the soul, he goes on to argue that, owing to the soul's incorporeality, no place is too narrow for it to enter, nor is it too narrow for the forms of all created things to find a place in it. The restriction of what the soul may eventually understand to created things is entirely consistent with the sage's account of the hierarchy of being. What is unexpected and ultimately more important is that Halevi gives enormous latitude to what the soul, or, more concretely stated, philosophers and natural scientists, may inquire into and understand within the created world itself. Whatever the limits of our capacity to understand divine things rationally, he is certainly not an irrationalist or even an anti-rationalist if that is understood to mean someone who completely rejects inquiry and theorizing. The second phase ends with the sage reminding the king that we must not reject what has been transmitted about the theophany, but say instead that we do not understand how these events and the miraculous deliverances that accompanied them took place. As noted above, “what has been transmitted” includes not only Moses’ reports but also the multitude's understanding and interpretation of what took place, and, insofar as this, too, is preserved in the Written and Oral Law, rejecting it would be tantamount to rejecting the Law itself and with it the social contract that it embodies. Thus, it is not surprising that the king accepts all that has been said as persuasive for the purposes of argument.