Difference between revisions of "Seeing Hashem/2"
m |
m |
||
Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
<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> | <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. As such, Moshe | + | <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. As such, Moshe says "לֹא רְאִיתֶם כׇּל תְּמוּנָה בְּיוֹם דִּבֶּר י״י אֲלֵיכֶם".  The episode can simultaneously be considered a "face to face" encounter, despite the lack of a clear image, both because it was Hashem Himself, rather than His glory or an angel, which descended, and because the people heard Hashem directly. </li> |
<li>Alternatively, one might suggest that as this, too, was a covenantal ceremony, the people were granted permission to physically see Hashem without fear of death.  This would explain</li> | <li>Alternatively, one might suggest that as this, too, was a covenantal ceremony, the people were granted permission to physically see Hashem without fear of death.  This would explain</li> | ||
</ul></point> | </ul></point> | ||
Line 90: | Line 90: | ||
<p>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.</p> | <p>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.</p> | ||
<mekorot><multilink><a href="TargumOnkelosShemot24-10-11" data-aht="source">Onkelos</a><a href="TargumOnkelosShemot24-10-11" data-aht="source">Shemot 24:10-11</a><a href="Targum Onkelos" data-aht="parshan">About Targum Onkelos</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="RSaadiaGaoninOtzarHaGeonimBerakhot6b" data-aht="source">R. Saadia Gaon</a><a href="RSaadiaGaoninOtzarHaGeonimBerakhot6b" data-aht="source">in Otzar HaGeonim Berakhot 6b</a><a href="RSaadiaGaonHaEmunotVeHaDeiot2-10" data-aht="source">HaEmunot VeHaDeiot 2:10</a><a href="RSaadiaGaonHaEmunotVeHaDeiot2-12" data-aht="source">HaEmunot VeHaDeiot 2:12</a><a href="RSaadiaGaonHaEmunotVeHaDeiot3-5" data-aht="source">HaEmunot VeHaDeiot 3:5</a><a href="R. Saadia Gaon" data-aht="parshan">About R. Saadia Gaon</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="SeferHaIkkarim2-28" data-aht="source">R"Y Albo</a><a href="SeferHaIkkarim2-28" data-aht="source">2:28</a><a href="Sefer HaIkkarim" data-aht="parshan">About R. Yosef Albo</a></multilink>,</mekorot> | <mekorot><multilink><a href="TargumOnkelosShemot24-10-11" data-aht="source">Onkelos</a><a href="TargumOnkelosShemot24-10-11" data-aht="source">Shemot 24:10-11</a><a href="Targum Onkelos" data-aht="parshan">About Targum Onkelos</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="RSaadiaGaoninOtzarHaGeonimBerakhot6b" data-aht="source">R. Saadia Gaon</a><a href="RSaadiaGaoninOtzarHaGeonimBerakhot6b" data-aht="source">in Otzar HaGeonim Berakhot 6b</a><a href="RSaadiaGaonHaEmunotVeHaDeiot2-10" data-aht="source">HaEmunot VeHaDeiot 2:10</a><a href="RSaadiaGaonHaEmunotVeHaDeiot2-12" data-aht="source">HaEmunot VeHaDeiot 2:12</a><a href="RSaadiaGaonHaEmunotVeHaDeiot3-5" data-aht="source">HaEmunot VeHaDeiot 3:5</a><a href="R. Saadia Gaon" data-aht="parshan">About R. Saadia Gaon</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="SeferHaIkkarim2-28" data-aht="source">R"Y Albo</a><a href="SeferHaIkkarim2-28" data-aht="source">2:28</a><a href="Sefer HaIkkarim" data-aht="parshan">About R. Yosef Albo</a></multilink>,</mekorot> | ||
− | <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.  In other words, when Hashem is said to have appeared to a prophet ("וַיֵּרָא י״י אֶל") this either means that an angel spoke with the prophet or that Hashem's "glory" rather than Hashem Himself was revealed.</point> |
+ | <point><b>Nature of Hashem's glory</b> – R. Saadia understands Hashem's glory to be some brilliant visual sign created by Hashem to signify that it is He who is speaking to His prophets.</point> | ||
<point><b>Why refer to an angel or Hashem's glory as Hashem?</b> <multilink><a href="IbnEzraShemotSecondCommentary14-24" data-aht="source">Ibn Ezra</a><a href="IbnEzraShemotSecondCommentary14-24" data-aht="source">Shemot Second Commentary 14:24</a><a href="IbnEzraShemotSecondCommentary24-10-11" data-aht="source">Shemot Second Commentary 24:10-11</a><a href="IbnEzraShemotSecondCommentary33-21" data-aht="source">Shemot Second Commentary 33:20-21</a><a href="IbnEzraVayikra16-2" data-aht="source">Vayikra 16:2</a><a href="IbnEzraDevarim5-4" data-aht="source">Devarim 5:4</a><a href="IbnEzraYeshayahu6-5" data-aht="source">Yeshayahu 6:5</a><a href="R. Avraham ibn Ezra" data-aht="parshan">About R. Avraham ibn Ezra</a></multilink> 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> <multilink><a href="IbnEzraShemotSecondCommentary14-24" data-aht="source">Ibn Ezra</a><a href="IbnEzraShemotSecondCommentary14-24" data-aht="source">Shemot Second Commentary 14:24</a><a href="IbnEzraShemotSecondCommentary24-10-11" data-aht="source">Shemot Second Commentary 24:10-11</a><a href="IbnEzraShemotSecondCommentary33-21" data-aht="source">Shemot Second Commentary 33:20-21</a><a href="IbnEzraVayikra16-2" data-aht="source">Vayikra 16:2</a><a href="IbnEzraDevarim5-4" data-aht="source">Devarim 5:4</a><a href="IbnEzraYeshayahu6-5" data-aht="source">Yeshayahu 6:5</a><a href="R. Avraham ibn Ezra" data-aht="parshan">About R. Avraham ibn Ezra</a></multilink> 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>"לֹא יִרְאַנִי הָאָדָם וָחָי"</b> – R. Saadia asserts that | + | <point><b>"לֹא יִרְאַנִי הָאָדָם וָחָי"</b> – R. Saadia asserts that this refers not to the inability to see Hashem's bodily form, as He has none (and Moshe would never have requested to see it), but to seeing even His glory. The created light of Hashem's glory is so bright and powerful that no mortal can actually look at it directly and live. As such, even verses which are reinterpreted to refer to seeing just this glory must be further constricted to refer to only an indirect or veiled vision. As such, R. Saadia might maintain that prophets who see Hashem's ""<br/> |
+ | <ul> | ||
+ | <li>Prophetic visions - R. Saadia might maintain that this itself was viewed only prophetically for the brilliance of the light made it impossible to be seen directly.</li> | ||
+ | </ul> | ||
+ | <ul> | ||
+ | <li></li> | ||
+ | </ul></point> | ||
<point><b>Moshe's request</b> – Moshe requested that Hashem, nonetheless, give him the power to do so. Hashem replied that he would not be able to see the light in its introductory phase ("לֹא תוּכַל לִרְאֹת אֶת פָּנָי") when it is at it strongest, but Hashem would cover his eyes until that passed and then Moshe would be able to see the last less powerful rays, "וְרָאִיתָ אֶת אֲחֹרָי".‎<fn>See R"Y Bekhor Shor similarly.</fn> </point> | <point><b>Moshe's request</b> – Moshe requested that Hashem, nonetheless, give him the power to do so. Hashem replied that he would not be able to see the light in its introductory phase ("לֹא תוּכַל לִרְאֹת אֶת פָּנָי") when it is at it strongest, but Hashem would cover his eyes until that passed and then Moshe would be able to see the last less powerful rays, "וְרָאִיתָ אֶת אֲחֹרָי".‎<fn>See R"Y Bekhor Shor similarly.</fn> </point> | ||
<point><b>Visions of Hashem by prophets</b> – According to R. Saadia,  when Hashem is said to have appeared to a prophet ("וַיֵּרָא י״י אֶל")<fn>The same would apply to prophets such as Yeshayahu are said to have seen an image of Hashem.</fn> this refers only to the revelation of His "glory", some brilliant visual sign created by Hashem to signify that it is He who is speaking. R. Saadia appears to maintain that this itself was viewed only prophetically for the brilliance of the light made it impossible to be seen directly. </point> | <point><b>Visions of Hashem by prophets</b> – According to R. Saadia,  when Hashem is said to have appeared to a prophet ("וַיֵּרָא י״י אֶל")<fn>The same would apply to prophets such as Yeshayahu are said to have seen an image of Hashem.</fn> this refers only to the revelation of His "glory", some brilliant visual sign created by Hashem to signify that it is He who is speaking. R. Saadia appears to maintain that this itself was viewed only prophetically for the brilliance of the light made it impossible to be seen directly. </point> | ||
− | <point><b>The nation's viewing of  כְבוֹד י״י</b> – The cloud or fire which sometimes appears to the people in the Wilderness is similarly referred to as "כְּבוֹד י"י" as it, too, serves to verify that Hashem is speaking to their leaders. R. Saadia is not explicit but likely maintains that | + | <point><b>The nation's viewing of  כְבוֹד י״י</b> – The cloud or fire which sometimes appears to the people in the Wilderness is similarly referred to as "כְּבוֹד י"י" as it, too, serves to verify that Hashem is speaking to their leaders. R. Saadia is not explicit but likely maintains that the cloud and fire are not themselves manifestations of Hashem's glory<fn>If they were, it would be difficult to understand why the masses are able to view them, but Moshe was not given permission to do so.</fn> but rather house Hashem's light within them, obscuring it enough to allow mankind to look.<fn>Alternatively, he might maintain that the cloud and fire do not even house Hashem's light, and are referred to as "כבוד י"י" only because they take on the same function as the created glory of Hashem.</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, many of the verses which speak of a prophet speaking to or seeing "Hashem" really mean that the prophet was speaking with an angel of 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, many of the verses which speak of a prophet speaking to or seeing "Hashem" really mean that the prophet was speaking with an angel of 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 07:11, 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. As such, Moshe says "לֹא רְאִיתֶם כׇּל תְּמוּנָה בְּיוֹם דִּבֶּר י״י אֲלֵיכֶם". The episode can simultaneously be considered a "face to face" encounter, despite the lack of a clear image, both because it was Hashem Himself, rather than His glory or an angel, which descended, and because the people heard Hashem directly.
- Alternatively, one might suggest that as this, too, was a covenantal ceremony, the people were granted permission to physically see Hashem without fear of death. This would explain
- 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.
- Prophetic visions - R. Saadia might maintain that this itself was viewed only prophetically for the brilliance of the light made it impossible to be seen directly.