Difference between revisions of "Seeing Hashem/2"
m |
m |
||
Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
</ul></point> | </ul></point> | ||
<point><b>What did they see?  - "וְרָאִיתָ אֶת אֲחֹרָי"</b> – Neither Rashi nor Rashbam elaborate on what it means to see Hashem directly or detail what it was that the people who merited to do so saw.  Rashbam, though, implies that even in cases of direct revelation, the vision is veiled or incomplete.  By Moshe, the verse states explicitly that Moshe only saw Hashem's "back" and Rashbam claims that this is what the elders in Shemot 24 saw as well. By Avraham, the verses describe a pillar of smoke and fire passing by, suggesting that there, too, the vision was obscured to some degree.</point> | <point><b>What did they see?  - "וְרָאִיתָ אֶת אֲחֹרָי"</b> – Neither Rashi nor Rashbam elaborate on what it means to see Hashem directly or detail what it was that the people who merited to do so saw.  Rashbam, though, implies that even in cases of direct revelation, the vision is veiled or incomplete.  By Moshe, the verse states explicitly that Moshe only saw Hashem's "back" and Rashbam claims that this is what the elders in Shemot 24 saw as well. By Avraham, the verses describe a pillar of smoke and fire passing by, suggesting that there, too, the vision was obscured to some degree.</point> | ||
− | <point><b>Corporeality of Hashem</b> – It is not clear what Rashi and Rashbam believe regarding the possibility that Hashem might take a corporeal form.<fn>See, for example, discussions in N. Slifkin, <a href="http://www.hakirah.org/Vol%207%20Slifkin.pdf">Was Rashi a Corporealist?</a>, Hakirah 7 (2009): 81-205, and M. Zucker, <a href="http://www.hakirah.org/Vol%209%20Zucker.pdf">No, Rashi Was Not a Corporealist</a>, Hakirah 9 (2010): 15-43. For a more general discussion of Jewish attitudes towards anthropomorphism and Hashem's corporeality, see Y. Lorberbaum, "על דעתם של חכמים ז"ל לא עלתה הגשמה מעולם - אנתרופומורפיות בספרות חז"ל - סקירת מחקר ביקורתית", Jewish Studies 40 (2000):3-54 and S. Friedman, "צלם, דמות ותבנית", Sidra 22 (2007): 89-152.<br/>Commentators who | + | <point><b>Corporeality of Hashem</b> – It is not clear what Rashi and Rashbam believe regarding the possibility that Hashem might take a corporeal form.<fn>See, for example, discussions in N. Slifkin, <a href="http://www.hakirah.org/Vol%207%20Slifkin.pdf">Was Rashi a Corporealist?</a>, Hakirah 7 (2009): 81-205, and M. Zucker, <a href="http://www.hakirah.org/Vol%209%20Zucker.pdf">No, Rashi Was Not a Corporealist</a>, Hakirah 9 (2010): 15-43. For a more general discussion of Jewish attitudes towards anthropomorphism and Hashem's corporeality, see Y. Lorberbaum, "על דעתם של חכמים ז"ל לא עלתה הגשמה מעולם - אנתרופומורפיות בספרות חז"ל - סקירת מחקר ביקורתית", Jewish Studies 40 (2000):3-54 and S. Friedman, "צלם, דמות ותבנית", Sidra 22 (2007): 89-152.<br/>Commentators who come from Moslem lands, such as R. Saadia Gaon, R. Chananel, and Rambam, tend to vehemently oppose the concept of a corporeal God, declaring such stance heretical.  They are likely influenced by Moslem doctrines of incorporeality.  Those coming from Christian countries, in contrast, where the concept of a corporeal God was accepted, might not have found the idea so troubling and might have been been more willing to accept anthropomorphic language in both Tanakh and aggadah as being literal and signifying that Hashem has a body.</fn> If this position were to maintain, as does <multilink><a href="RMosheTakuKetavTamimprintedinOtzarNechmad" data-aht="source">R. Moshe Taku</a><a href="RMosheTakuKetavTamimprintedinOtzarNechmad" data-aht="source">Ketav Tamim (printed in Otzar Nechmad)</a></multilink>, that Hashem does adopt one at times, then those who "see Hashem" might actually see a physical manifestation of Hashem's corporeal form and phrases such as "וְרָאִיתָ אֶת אֲחֹרָי" might be understood literally.</point> |
<point><b>"הִנֵּה אָנֹכִי בָּא אֵלֶיךָ בְּעַב הֶעָנָן"</b> – Rashbam explains that Hashem spoke to Moshe "in the thickness of the cloud" to protect Moshe from seeing Hashem.  This is consistent with the notion that Hashem might literally manifest Himself, necessitating cover to protect human observers.</point> | <point><b>"הִנֵּה אָנֹכִי בָּא אֵלֶיךָ בְּעַב הֶעָנָן"</b> – Rashbam explains that Hashem spoke to Moshe "in the thickness of the cloud" to protect Moshe from seeing Hashem.  This is consistent with the notion that Hashem might literally manifest Himself, necessitating cover to protect human observers.</point> | ||
<point><b>"וְלֹא יָמוּת כִּי בֶּעָנָן אֵרָאֶה עַל הַכַּפֹּרֶת"</b> – This position might understand that Hashem is literally revealed on the<i> kapporet</i> and therefore any who enter and see will die. Rashbam explains that it is for the reason that before entering the Inner Sanctum on Yom HaKippurim, the priest is directed to first make a cloud of incense whereby the House is darkened and the vision blocked.</point> | <point><b>"וְלֹא יָמוּת כִּי בֶּעָנָן אֵרָאֶה עַל הַכַּפֹּרֶת"</b> – This position might understand that Hashem is literally revealed on the<i> kapporet</i> and therefore any who enter and see will die. Rashbam explains that it is for the reason that before entering the Inner Sanctum on Yom HaKippurim, the priest is directed to first make a cloud of incense whereby the House is darkened and the vision blocked.</point> | ||
Line 75: | Line 75: | ||
<li><b>Comprehension of the Divine </b>– According to Rambam, R. Avraham b. HaRambam,<fn>See the second approach that he offers.</fn> Seforno, and Malbim, Moshe was asking to understand some aspect of Hashem's being and existence. Hashem replied that a complete understanding was impossible, but Moshe could attain partial comprehension.</li> | <li><b>Comprehension of the Divine </b>– According to Rambam, R. Avraham b. HaRambam,<fn>See the second approach that he offers.</fn> Seforno, and Malbim, Moshe was asking to understand some aspect of Hashem's being and existence. Hashem replied that a complete understanding was impossible, but Moshe could attain partial comprehension.</li> | ||
</ul></point> | </ul></point> | ||
− | <point><b>Uniqueness of Moshe</b> – These commentators suggest that it was not the ability to receive a prophetic image of Hashem which elevated Moshe over others, as this was not unique (and might even be interpreted as signifying a prophetic deficiency).<fn>See above that according to Rambam and R"Y Albo, Moshe's uniqueness lay precisely in the fact that he did <b>not</b> receive such an image and made no use of his imaginative faculties when prophesying.</fn> Rather, it was the level and manner in which he received his prophecies which differentiated him. Moshe was capable of prophesying when awake<fn>See Ibn Ezra, Rambam, Seforno.</fn> and could do so whenever he desired.<fn>See Ibn Ezra, Rambam.</fn> Moreover, Hashem communicated with him directly and not via an angel<fn>See Ibn Ezra, Rambam, and Abarbanel.</fn> so that he received clear messages, and not analogies and riddles.<fn>See Ibn Ezra, R"Y Bekhor Shor, Rambam, and Seforno.  R"Y Bekhor Shor is explicitly polemical, pointing out that the fact that Moshe received clear prophecies without analogies refutes the claims of "other nations" that the Torah is allegorical.  R"Y Bekhor Shor is likely referring to the typology of Christianity, which claims that many incidents or characters in Torah | + | <point><b>Uniqueness of Moshe</b> – These commentators suggest that it was not the ability to receive a prophetic image of Hashem which elevated Moshe over others, as this was not unique (and might even be interpreted as signifying a prophetic deficiency).<fn>See above that according to Rambam and R"Y Albo, Moshe's uniqueness lay precisely in the fact that he did <b>not</b> receive such an image and made no use of his imaginative faculties when prophesying.</fn> Rather, it was the level and manner in which he received his prophecies which differentiated him. Moshe was capable of prophesying when awake<fn>See Ibn Ezra, Rambam, Seforno.</fn> and could do so whenever he desired.<fn>See Ibn Ezra, Rambam.</fn> Moreover, Hashem communicated with him directly and not via an angel<fn>See Ibn Ezra, Rambam, and Abarbanel.</fn> so that he received clear messages, and not analogies and riddles.<fn>See Ibn Ezra, R"Y Bekhor Shor, Rambam, and Seforno.  R"Y Bekhor Shor is explicitly polemical, pointing out that the fact that Moshe received clear prophecies without analogies refutes the claims of "other nations" that the Torah is allegorical.  R"Y Bekhor Shor is likely referring to the typology of Christianity, which claims that many incidents or characters in Torah prefigure events in the life of Jesus.</fn></point> |
<point><b>Seeing angels</b></point> | <point><b>Seeing angels</b></point> | ||
</category> | </category> | ||
Line 95: | Line 95: | ||
<point><b>Corporeality of Hashem</b> – This position denies the possibility that Hashem might take on bodily form, necessitating one to reinterpret any verses which imply that Hashem can be seen.  It does so by suggesting that the word Hashem in such verses is either short for "the glory of Hashem" or refers to an angel.</point> | <point><b>Corporeality of Hashem</b> – This position denies the possibility that Hashem might take on bodily form, necessitating one to reinterpret any verses which imply that Hashem can be seen.  It does so by suggesting that the word Hashem in such verses is either short for "the glory of Hashem" or refers to an angel.</point> | ||
<point><b>Why refer to an angel or Hashem's glory as Hashem?</b> Ibn Ezra explains that a messenger is like the one who sends him since he is simply doing his bidding; as such he might take on his name.<fn>See his formulation, "כי השליח יקרא בשם השולח, כי אחר שצוהו לעשות כן הוא עושה".</fn> So, too, an angel fulfilling Hashem's will might be called by the name of Hashem.  R"Y Albo adds that when something belongs to or emanates from another, especially when it serves to represent the other, it might be called by its name. Hence, if Hashem creates a cloud or light to signify Himself, it might be called after Hashem.</point> | <point><b>Why refer to an angel or Hashem's glory as Hashem?</b> Ibn Ezra explains that a messenger is like the one who sends him since he is simply doing his bidding; as such he might take on his name.<fn>See his formulation, "כי השליח יקרא בשם השולח, כי אחר שצוהו לעשות כן הוא עושה".</fn> So, too, an angel fulfilling Hashem's will might be called by the name of Hashem.  R"Y Albo adds that when something belongs to or emanates from another, especially when it serves to represent the other, it might be called by its name. Hence, if Hashem creates a cloud or light to signify Himself, it might be called after Hashem.</point> | ||
− | <point><b>"כבוד ה"</b> – R. Saadia suggests that this refers to a visual sign, often a brilliant light, created by Hashem to signify to His prophets that it is Hashem who is speaking to them. The cloud or fire which sometimes appears to the people in the Wilderness is similarly referred to as "כבוד ה" as it, too, serves to verify that Hashem is speaking to their leaders.<fn>It is not clear if R. Saadia assumes that the cloud which appeared to the people is totally equivalent to the created light, contained within it the created light, or if the two are different entities but both referred to as "Hashem's glory".</fn> As such, when Hashem is said to have appeared to a prophet (...וירא ה' אל) , or when prophets such as Yeshayahu are said to have seen an image of Hashem, this might refer to this glory.</point> | + | <point><b>"כבוד ה"</b> – R. Saadia suggests that this refers to a visual sign, often a brilliant light, created by Hashem to signify to His prophets that it is Hashem who is speaking to them. The cloud or fire which sometimes appears to the people in the Wilderness is similarly referred to as "כבוד ה" as it, too, serves to verify that Hashem is speaking to their leaders.<fn>It is not clear if R. Saadia assumes that the cloud which appeared to the people is totally equivalent to the created light, it it contained within it the created light, or if the two are different entities but both referred to as "Hashem's glory".</fn> As such, when Hashem is said to have appeared to a prophet (...וירא ה' אל) , or when prophets such as Yeshayahu are said to have seen an image of Hashem, this might refer to this glory.</point> |
<point><b>Angels</b> – Both R. Saadia and R"Y Albo assume that, with the exception of Moshe, prophets never receive prophecies directly from Hashem, but rather via an angel.  As such, verses which speak of a prophet speaking to or seeing "Hashem" really mean that the prophet was speaking with an angel of Hashem. Thus, for instance, the angel who appears to Moshe in the Burning Bush is referred to as Hashem.<fn>R"Y Albo asserts that in the beginning of Moshe's career, he, too, received prophecy via the mediation of an angel; only later did he merit "face to face" encounters.</fn></point> | <point><b>Angels</b> – Both R. Saadia and R"Y Albo assume that, with the exception of Moshe, prophets never receive prophecies directly from Hashem, but rather via an angel.  As such, verses which speak of a prophet speaking to or seeing "Hashem" really mean that the prophet was speaking with an angel of Hashem. Thus, for instance, the angel who appears to Moshe in the Burning Bush is referred to as Hashem.<fn>R"Y Albo asserts that in the beginning of Moshe's career, he, too, received prophecy via the mediation of an angel; only later did he merit "face to face" encounters.</fn></point> | ||
<point><b>"יֵרֵד י״י לְעֵינֵי כׇל הָעָם"</b> – This position would reinterpret "Hashem" in this verse as well to refer to His glory.<fn>See <multilink><a href="RAvrahambHaRambamShemot19-11" data-aht="source">R. Avraham b. HaRambam</a><a href="RAvrahambHaRambamShemot19-11" data-aht="source">Shemot 19:11</a><a href="R. Avraham Maimonides" data-aht="parshan">About R. Avraham Maimonides</a></multilink>.</fn> <multilink><a href="RambanShemot19-11" data-aht="source">Ramban</a><a href="RambanShemot19-11" data-aht="source">Shemot 19:11</a><a href="R. Moshe b. Nachman (Ramban, Nachmanides)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Moshe b. Nachman</a></multilink> says that the nation viewed this as a "consuming fire", drawing off the description later in the chapter, "יָרַד עָלָיו י״י בָּאֵשׁ" and in Shemot 24, "וּמַרְאֵה כְּבוֹד י״י כְּאֵשׁ אֹכֶלֶת בְּרֹאשׁ הָהָר".</point> | <point><b>"יֵרֵד י״י לְעֵינֵי כׇל הָעָם"</b> – This position would reinterpret "Hashem" in this verse as well to refer to His glory.<fn>See <multilink><a href="RAvrahambHaRambamShemot19-11" data-aht="source">R. Avraham b. HaRambam</a><a href="RAvrahambHaRambamShemot19-11" data-aht="source">Shemot 19:11</a><a href="R. Avraham Maimonides" data-aht="parshan">About R. Avraham Maimonides</a></multilink>.</fn> <multilink><a href="RambanShemot19-11" data-aht="source">Ramban</a><a href="RambanShemot19-11" data-aht="source">Shemot 19:11</a><a href="R. Moshe b. Nachman (Ramban, Nachmanides)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Moshe b. Nachman</a></multilink> says that the nation viewed this as a "consuming fire", drawing off the description later in the chapter, "יָרַד עָלָיו י״י בָּאֵשׁ" and in Shemot 24, "וּמַרְאֵה כְּבוֹד י״י כְּאֵשׁ אֹכֶלֶת בְּרֹאשׁ הָהָר".</point> |
Version as of 13:49, 20 February 2020
Seeing Hashem
Exegetical Approaches
Overview
Commentators struggle to understand how Hashem reveals Himself to mankind and what the text implies when it states that an individual "saw Hashem". Some commentators assume that man really may see some manifestation of Hashem, either directly or prophetically. Rashbam, thus, allows for direct revelation, claiming that in rare instances, when Hashem makes a covenantal relationship, He might grant the second party the honor of viewing Him without fear of mortal peril. Ibn Ezra, instead, claims that any visions of Hashem in Tanakh must be understood to have taken place in a prophetic dream. In such a dream, man might imagine Hashem even in human form. Physically seeing Hashem, though, is impossible.
Others suggest that all verses which speak of "seeing Hashem" need to be reinterpreted and explained non-literally. Rambam claims that the word "see" might refer to comprehension rather than physical sight and that such verses refer to attaining a level of cognition of the Divine. A final approach suggests that verses which speak of Hashem's revelation really refer only to the manifestation of Hashem's glory (a brilliant created light) or to an angel. Each is referred to as "Hashem" after the One who sent or created it. Many commentators combine these approaches, explaining the various revelations on a case by case basis.
Direct Revelation of Hashem
At times, Hashem directly reveals Himself, allowing humans to glimpse God Himself.
- Stay of execution – Rashi maintains that though in all cases in which humans directly see Hashem they will die, in exceptional circumstances this death can be delayed. Thus, though Nadav and Avihu and the elders saw Hashem at Sinai (Shemot 24), Hashem pushed off their deaths so as not to mar the happiness of receiving the Torah.1
- No death – Rashbam, in contrast, asserts that in some situations, seeing Hashem is a privilege granted by Hashem, not deserving of death at all. When making a covenant, Hashem might honor the second party by allowing them to see Hashem as He passes by.2 Thus, in the Covenant Between the Pieces, Avraham merited to see Hashem pass (Bereshit 15:17-18), at the covenant at Sinai, the elders merited to see Hashem (Shemot 24:10-11), and when Hashem made the covenant in Shemot 34:10, He allowed Moshe to see Him as well (Shemot 33:23 and Shemot 34:6).
- It is possible that Hashem granted the nation permission to look, but only from afar, at which distance the nation could not really see Hashem regardless.4 As such, they saw no "picture", though they did watch Hashem's descent, as per the literal understanding of "יֵרֵד י״י לְעֵינֵי כׇל הָעָם". The encounter was "face to face" in the sense that nothing concrete obscured the vision, only distance.
- It is also possible that the people really were privileged to see Hashem, but that Hashem does not have a form that can in any way be called a "תְּמוּנָה" and it is this which Moshe emphasizes in Sefer Devarim.
- Rashi writes that all prophets (excluding Moshe) see through "a non-transparent glass".6 It is not clear if Rashi's emphasis is on the lack of clarity in these prophet's visions or on the very fact that they occurred in a prophetic dream rather than being a direct and conscious revelation.7 Either way, this opaque or non-physical viewing is what allowed them to survive the revelation.
- Rashbam speaks explicitly only of Michayhu's vision of Hashem, but appears to concur with the first understanding of Rashi. He states that the vision was fuzzy, like someone who can make out the outline of a friend but not see His face.
- Prophetic vision & veiled encounter – They could explain them in the same manner as they do the explicit visions of Hashem described by Yeshayahu, Yechezkel and Michayhu discussed above, that these were either prophetic visions or otherwise veiled and fuzzy revelations.
- Hashem = an angel – Alternatively, they might suggest that, at least in some of these cases, the term Hashem refers not to Hashem Himself, but to his messenger, an angel who is called after the One who sent him. This is how Rashbam explains the appearance of "Hashem" to Avraham in Bereshit 18:1 and to Moshe by the Burning Bush.8
- Cloaked manifestation – In many of the cases in which "'כְּבוֹד ה" is mentioned, the verse also mentions the presence of Hashem's cloud.9 As such, if it does refer to some manifestation of Hashem Himself, it seems that this is always cloaked in the pillar of cloud so as to obscure the vision to all who looked at it, protecting them from death.10
- Cloud of glory - Alternatively, it is possible that the "glory" refers to the cloud itself,11 and is meant to signify Hashem, but is not any part of Hashem Himself. As such, it is not dangerous to look upon it.
- Hashem's deeds – Rashbam maintains that in some of the cases where the term appears, it does not refer to Hashem at all but rather to His miraculous deeds. For example, by the manna, when Moshe and Aharon tell the nation, "וּבֹקֶר וּרְאִיתֶם אֶת כְּבוֹד י״י" (Shemot 16:7), they are referring to the miracle of the manna itself.12
- Rashi suggests that Moshe did see more than others. Drawing off Bavli Yevamot 49b, he claims that while others could only see Hashem through an "opaque glass", Moshe saw him through a transparent one. Nonetheless, he points out that even Moshe only saw "מראה אחוריים" and not "מראה שכינה" for even Moshe cannot see the Shechinah and live.13
- Rashbam, in contrast, implies that Moshe did not necessarily see any more than others who similarly merited to receive a direct revelation during a covenantal ceremony. If so, Moshe's uniqueness as a prophet might instead lay in his constant communication with Hashem and his fuller comprehension of the Divine message.
Prophetic Vision
Hashem does not directly reveal Himself to mankind but does appear to them via prophecy. Any image of God that they see is only in a prophetic dream.
- Physical vs. prophetic seeing – R. Chananel distinguishes between physically seeing Hashem, which is impossible, and prophets receiving an image in a dream or vision, which is possible.17
- Full understanding vs. prophetic image – Rambam, in contrast, asserts that the verse "לֹא יִרְאַנִי הָאָדָם וָחָי" refers not to the inability of mortals to see God, but to their inability to attain a deep, complete understanding of His essence.18 Other verses which speak of seeing God refer to prophetic visions which man can safely receive with proper preparation.
- Different levels of prophecy – R. Yosef Albo claims that Moshe, being on the highest level of prophecy, could never see Hashem even in a prophetic vision since his prophecies were unaffected by the imagination.19 Other prophets, though, could see images representing Hashem in their prophetic dreams.20
- Unmediated revelation – Ibn Ezra, R"Y Bekhor Shor, and R. Hoffmann assert that the description teaches that the nation heard Hashem's voice/words directly, without the mediation of Moshe,25 not that they saw Hashem's face.
- Conscious prophecy – Seforno understands "פָּנִים בְּפָנִים" to mean that the nation received prophecy while fully in control of their senses. Rambam similarly claims that they apprehended the Divine and heard His voice without the intervention of an angel.26 As such, the phrase says nothing about actually seeing the face or any image of Hashem.
- Prophetic image – R. Bachya, following the Midrash27 (and in contrast to Shadal above), suggests that the phrase "פָּנִים בְּפָנִים" refers to the many images via which Hashem appeared to the different members of the nation during revelation. Though he is not explicit, it appears that he is referring to prophetic images, while the verse "לֹא רְאִיתֶם כׇּל תְּמוּנָה" refers to the nation not having physically seen a picture of Hashem Himself.
- Hashem's glory – Shadal asserts that Moshe requested to see the created light of Hashem's glory, not in a prophetic dream but while awake.33 Hashem responded that it is impossible to view it frontally, but allowed him to do so in passing.
- Comprehension of the Divine – According to Rambam, R. Avraham b. HaRambam,34 Seforno, and Malbim, Moshe was asking to understand some aspect of Hashem's being and existence. Hashem replied that a complete understanding was impossible, but Moshe could attain partial comprehension.
Cognitive Experience
When Torah speaks of humans seeing Hashem, it refers to a cognitive experience, man's comprehending of some aspect of Hashem's nature.
Rambam claims that when Moshe asked "הַרְאֵנִי נָא אֶת כְּבֹדֶךָ" he was requesting to perceive Hashem's true essence. Hashem replied that no mortal can attain such understanding ("לֹא יִרְאַנִי הָאָדָם וָחָי"). Hashem, instead, promised Moshe a lower level of perception, that he would comprehend not Hashem's "face" but only His "back" ("וְרָאִיתָ אֶת אֲחֹרָי").
"Hashem" reinterpreted
Verses which speak of Hashem appearing to man must be reinterpreted to mean either that Hashem's glory (in the form of a created light, fire or cloud) was revealed, or that there was mediation of an angel.