Difference between revisions of "Seeing Hashem/2"
m |
m |
||
Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
<point><b>"וְרָאִיתָ אֶת אֲחֹרָי" – What did they see?</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 physical 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>"וְרָאִיתָ אֶת אֲחֹרָי" – What did they see?</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 physical 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 unclear whether Rashi and Rashbam believed that Hashem might take on 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 more general discussions 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 hailed from Moslem lands, such as R. Saadia Gaon, R. Chananel, and Rambam, tended to vehemently oppose the concept of a corporeal God, declaring such stance heretical.  They were likely influenced by Muslim doctrines of incorporeality.  Commentators living in Christian countries, in contrast, where the concept of a corporeal God was widely 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 <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> is often understood to believe,<fn>However, for an opposing position, see Joseph Dan, "Ashkenazi Hasidism and the Maimonidean Controversy", Maimonidean Studies Vol. 3 (1995): 42-43, who argues that Taku "most probably... did not" believe in an anthropomorphic God.</fn> that Hashem does adopt a corporeal form at times, then the Biblical characters who "saw Hashem" could actually have seen a physical manifestation of Hashem's corporeal form and phrases such as "וְרָאִיתָ אֶת אֲחֹרָי" might be understood literally.</point> | <point><b>Corporeality of Hashem</b> – It is unclear whether Rashi and Rashbam believed that Hashem might take on 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 more general discussions 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 hailed from Moslem lands, such as R. Saadia Gaon, R. Chananel, and Rambam, tended to vehemently oppose the concept of a corporeal God, declaring such stance heretical.  They were likely influenced by Muslim doctrines of incorporeality.  Commentators living in Christian countries, in contrast, where the concept of a corporeal God was widely 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 <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> is often understood to believe,<fn>However, for an opposing position, see Joseph Dan, "Ashkenazi Hasidism and the Maimonidean Controversy", Maimonidean Studies Vol. 3 (1995): 42-43, who argues that Taku "most probably... did not" believe in an anthropomorphic God.</fn> that Hashem does adopt a corporeal form at times, then the Biblical characters who "saw Hashem" could actually have seen a physical manifestation of Hashem's corporeal form and phrases such as "וְרָאִיתָ אֶת אֲחֹרָי" might be understood literally.</point> | ||
+ | <point><b>Revelation at Sinai: וְהַר סִינַי עָשַׁן כֻּלּוֹ מִפְּנֵי אֲשֶׁר יָרַד עָלָיו י״י </b><ul> | ||
+ | <li>These sources might suggest that at Sinai Hashem literally descended on the mountain, revealing Himself, but obscured the vision in smoke and fire so that none would be harmed.</li> | ||
+ | </ul></point> | ||
<point><b>"הִנֵּה אָנֹכִי בָּא אֵלֶיךָ בְּעַב הֶעָנָן"</b> – Rashbam explains that Hashem spoke to Moshe "in the thickness of the cloud" to prevent 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 prevent 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 the Inner Sanctum and see Him will die. Rashbam explains that for this reason, before entering the Inner Sanctum on Yom HaKippurim, the priest must first make a cloud of incense whereby the House is darkened and the vision is 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 the Inner Sanctum and see Him will die. Rashbam explains that for this reason, before entering the Inner Sanctum on Yom HaKippurim, the priest must first make a cloud of incense whereby the House is darkened and the vision is blocked.</point> |
Version as of 06:29, 26 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" can refer to comprehension rather than physical sight and that such verses describe 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.
Physical Perception 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.
- 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.1 Thus, Avraham merited to see Hashem pass (Bereshit 15:17-18) at the Covenant Between the Pieces, the elders qualified to see Hashem (Shemot 24:10-11) at the covenant at Sinai, and Moshe was able to see Hashem (Shemot 33:23 and Shemot 34:6) in the context of the covenant in Shemot 34:10.
- It is possible that Hashem granted the nation permission to look, but only from afar, at which distance the nation could not truly make out Hashem's form.3 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 this is what Moshe emphasizes in Sefer Devarim.
- These sources might suggest that at Sinai Hashem literally descended on the mountain, revealing Himself, but obscured the vision in smoke and fire so that none would be harmed.
- 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 prophets' 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 Mikhaihu'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 Mikhaihu discussed above, that these were either prophetic visions or otherwise unclear 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 י"י" is mentioned, the verse also mentions the presence of Hashem's cloud.9 As such, if the "כבוד" 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 does not actually contain Hashem's presence. As such, it is not dangerous to gaze 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 perceived 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.14
Nonphysical Apprehension of Hashem
Humans cannot physically see Hashem. When Torah speaks of Divine revelation, it refers either to a prophetic dream or to a cognitive experience, man's comprehending of some aspect of Hashem's nature.
- 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.18
- 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. Other verses which speak of seeing God refer to prophetic visions or to a lower level of cognition, both of which can be safely achieved 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 and/or conscious revelation – Ibn Ezra, R"Y Bekhor Shor, and R. Hoffmann assert that the description teaches that the nation apprehended Hashem without the mediation of Moshe, while Rambam claims that they uniquely heard His voice without the intervention of an angel.23 Seforno adds a third possibility, that "פָּנִים בְּפָנִים" means that the nation received prophecy while fully in control of their senses. The phrase, thus, says nothing about actually seeing the face or any image of Hashem.
- Prophetic image – R. Bachya, following the Midrash24 (and in contrast to Shadal above), suggests that the words "פָּנִים בְּפָנִים" refers to the many images via which Hashem appeared to the different members of the nation during the revelation at Sinai. These refer to prophetic images, while the verse "לֹא רְאִיתֶם כׇּל תְּמוּנָה" refers to the nation not having physically seen a picture of Hashem Himself.
- Prophetic vision – According to many of these sources25 the elders did not literally see Hashem, but received a prophetic vision in which they imagined Hashem as described. Shadal explains that this was a special honor since the masses had only heard Hashem's voice at Sinai26 and were not privileged to also prophetically see any created image.27
- Cognitive experience – Rambam and Ralbag, in contrast, assert that the verses speak of the elder's attempt to understand Hashem's essence. Rambam claims that due to insufficient preparation, they attained a flawed perception of God, and were, thus, deserving of death,28 while Ralbag raises the possibility that their understanding was a praiseworthy achievement.29
- Hashem's glory – Shadal30 asserts that Moshe requested to see the created light of Hashem's glory, not in a prophetic dream but while awake.31 Hashem responded that it is impossible to view it frontally, but allowed him to do so in passing.32
- Comprehension of the Divine – According to Rambam, R. Avraham b. HaRambam,33 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.34
Revelation of Hashem's Glory
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.