Difference between revisions of "Seeing Hashem/2"
m |
|||
Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
</ul></point> | </ul></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 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 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>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 a 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.<br/>For discussion of Rashi's stance, see 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.</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 | + | <point><b>Corporeality of Hashem</b> – It is unclear whether Rashi and Rashbam believed that Hashem might take on a corporeal form.<fn>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 a 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.<br/>For discussion of Rashi's stance, see 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.</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, 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 bodily form at times, then the Biblical characters who "saw Hashem" might actually have seen a physical manifestation of Hashem and phrases such as "וְרָאִיתָ אֶת אֲחֹרָי" might be understood literally.</point> |
− | <point><b>Revelation at Sinai: | + | <point><b>Revelation at Sinai (<a href="Shemot19-21-24" data-aht="source">Shemot 19:17-24</a>)</b> – It is not clear what this position holds regarding the extent of the nation's perception of Hashem at Sinai:<fn>Both Rashi and Rashbam touch on the issue, suggesting that either the nation or Moshe at least raised the possibility of the people seeing Hashem during revelation.  However, it is unclear what they think Hashem responded. In his comments to Shemot 19:9, Rashi has Moshe tell Hashem that the people desire direct communication with Him:, "רצוננו <b>לראות </b>את מלכנו".  The Leipzig 1 manuscript of Rashi then contains a later addition of R. Shemaya (see Rashi's <a href="RashiShemot19-9-10" data-aht="source">comments to Shemot 19:10</a> and similarly <multilink><a href="RashiDevarim5-19" data-aht="source">Devarim 5:19</a><a href="RashiShemot19-9-10" data-aht="source">Shemot 19:9-10</a><a href="RashiDevarim5-19" data-aht="source">Devarim 5:19</a><a href="R. Shelomo Yitzchaki (Rashi)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki</a></multilink>) which appears to present Hashem as agreeing only to direct verbal communication (לסבול כובד תוקף להבות <b>פיו</b>), but not a visual revelation. <br/>Rashbam presents Moshe as asking Hashem if the reason He gave additional warnings about ascending the mountain was because He did not want the nation to even watch from afar ("שמא אתה מוסיף שאפילו להתקרב מעט כדי להסתכל ו<b>לראות</b> אפילו רחוק מן ההר אסור?"). Due to a discrepancy between the Breslau manuscript of Rashbam's commentary and the Munich 252 and Oxford Marsh 225 manuscripts, it is unclear what Rashbam presents Hashem as answering. The former reads, "גם עתה <b>לא אמרתי</b> <b>לראות</b>, בלא עלייה לא אמרתי לך" (presenting Hashem as forbidding seeing) whereas the latter reads, "גם עתה <b>לא אסרתי</b> <b>לראות</b>, בלא עלייה לא אמרתי לך" (presenting Hashem as permitting seeing,  but from a distance). However, if Rashbam does maintain that the people here received a direct visual revelation, it is somewhat surprising that he does not include the event within his examples of covenantal ceremonies in which people were granted such a privilege.</fn><br/> |
<ul> | <ul> | ||
− | <li><b>Obscured vision</b> – 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".  Despite the hidden nature of the revelation, however, the episode | + | <li><b>Obscured vision</b> – 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".  Despite the hidden nature of the revelation, however, the episode is simultaneously considered a "face to face" encounter, both because it was Hashem Himself, rather than His glory or an angel, which descended and because the people heard Hashem directly.<fn>Alternatively, Hashem granted the nation permission to look, but only from afar, at which distance the nation could not truly make out Hashem's form. [See Rashbam's <a href="RashbamBereshit48-8" data-aht="source">comments to Bereshit 48:8</a> where he asserts that at times one can see an image of another but not make out their face and that one may see Hashem in this manner and not be deserving of death.]  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".‎</fn></li> |
− | <li><b>Direct perception</b> – 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, as per the description "פָּנִים בְּפָנִים דִּבֶּר י״י עִמָּכֶם" This reading, though, encounters considerable difficulty from Devarim 4's emphasis on the fact that the nation saw no image at Sinai ("וּתְמוּנָה אֵינְכֶם רֹאִים"). Perhaps, though, Hashem simply does not have a form that can in any way be called a "תְּמוּנָה",‎<fn>For example, if Hashem's form is simply some type of brilliant ethereal light, this would not be considered a "likeness".</fn> and this is what Moshe | + | <li><b>Direct perception</b> – 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, as per the description "פָּנִים בְּפָנִים דִּבֶּר י״י עִמָּכֶם". This reading, though, encounters considerable difficulty from Devarim 4's emphasis on the fact that the nation saw no image at Sinai ("וּתְמוּנָה אֵינְכֶם רֹאִים"). Perhaps, though, Hashem simply does not have a form that can in any way be called a "תְּמוּנָה",‎<fn>For example, if Hashem's form is simply some type of brilliant ethereal light, this would not be considered a "likeness".</fn> and this is what Moshe stresses in Sefer Devarim.</li> |
</ul></point> | </ul></point> | ||
− | <point><b>"הִנֵּה אָנֹכִי בָּא אֵלֶיךָ בְּעַב הֶעָנָן" (Shemot 19:9)</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" (<a href="Shemot19-11" data-aht="source">Shemot 19:9</a>)</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" (Vayikra 16:2)</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.<fn>See <a href="Vayikra16-13" data-aht="source">Vayikra 16:13</a>, "וְכִסָּה עֲנַן הַקְּטֹרֶת אֶת הַכַּפֹּרֶת אֲשֶׁר עַל הָעֵדוּת וְלֹא יָמוּת".</fn></point> | + | <point><b>"וְלֹא יָמוּת כִּי בֶּעָנָן אֵרָאֶה עַל הַכַּפֹּרֶת" (<a href="Vayikra16-2" data-aht="source">Vayikra 16:2</a>)</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.<fn>See <a href="Vayikra16-13" data-aht="source">Vayikra 16:13</a>, "וְכִסָּה עֲנַן הַקְּטֹרֶת אֶת הַכַּפֹּרֶת אֲשֶׁר עַל הָעֵדוּת וְלֹא יָמוּת".</fn></point> |
− | <point><b>Visions of Hashem by prophets – "רָאִיתִי אֶת י״י יֹשֵׁב"</b> – This position must explain Hashem's revelations to the Avot and how various prophets are all said to see Hashem | + | <point><b>Visions of Hashem by prophets – "רָאִיתִי אֶת י״י יֹשֵׁב"</b> – This position must explain Hashem's revelations to the Avot and how various prophets are all said to see Hashem, yet do not die:<br/> |
<ul> | <ul> | ||
<li><b>Prophetic vision or veiled encounter </b>– Drawing off <multilink><a href="BavliYevamot49b" data-aht="source">Bavli Yevamot 49b</a><a href="BavliYevamot49b" data-aht="source">Yevamot 49b</a><a href="Talmud Bavli" data-aht="parshan">About the Bavli</a></multilink>, Rashi writes that all prophets (excluding Moshe) see through "a non-transparent glass".<fn>Rashi notes that this is why Yechezkel's vision of Hashem is referred to as "מראות אלהים", being dream-like in nature.</fn>  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.<fn>In Rashi's comments to Bemidbar 12:6 he writes that such prophets see "בחלום וחזיון", while on Bavli Sukkah 45b he explains that "a non-transparent glass" refers to one through which "אין יכולין לראות ממש".</fn>  Either way, this opaque or non-physical prophetic viewing is what allowed them to survive the revelation.<fn>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. </fn></li> | <li><b>Prophetic vision or veiled encounter </b>– Drawing off <multilink><a href="BavliYevamot49b" data-aht="source">Bavli Yevamot 49b</a><a href="BavliYevamot49b" data-aht="source">Yevamot 49b</a><a href="Talmud Bavli" data-aht="parshan">About the Bavli</a></multilink>, Rashi writes that all prophets (excluding Moshe) see through "a non-transparent glass".<fn>Rashi notes that this is why Yechezkel's vision of Hashem is referred to as "מראות אלהים", being dream-like in nature.</fn>  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.<fn>In Rashi's comments to Bemidbar 12:6 he writes that such prophets see "בחלום וחזיון", while on Bavli Sukkah 45b he explains that "a non-transparent glass" refers to one through which "אין יכולין לראות ממש".</fn>  Either way, this opaque or non-physical prophetic viewing is what allowed them to survive the revelation.<fn>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. </fn></li> |
Version as of 01:10, 27 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". Rashbam allows for direct revelation, claiming that in rare instances, when Hashem makes a covenantal relationship, He might grant the second party the honor of physically viewing Him without fear of mortal peril.
The majority of sources, in contrast, claim that since Hashem takes no bodily form, physically seeing Hashem is impossible. Any visions of Hashem in Tanakh must be understood either to have taken place in a prophetic dream (where man might imagine Hashem even in human form) or to refer to cognitive insight into some aspect of Hashem's Being. A final approach suggests that verses which speak of Hashem's revelation really refer only to the manifestation of Hashem's glory or to an angel. Each is referred to as "Hashem" after the One who sent or created it.
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.
- Obscured vision – 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". Despite the hidden nature of the revelation, however, the episode is simultaneously considered a "face to face" encounter, both because it was Hashem Himself, rather than His glory or an angel, which descended and because the people heard Hashem directly.5
- Direct perception – 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, as per the description "פָּנִים בְּפָנִים דִּבֶּר י״י עִמָּכֶם". This reading, though, encounters considerable difficulty from Devarim 4's emphasis on the fact that the nation saw no image at Sinai ("וּתְמוּנָה אֵינְכֶם רֹאִים"). Perhaps, though, Hashem simply does not have a form that can in any way be called a "תְּמוּנָה",6 and this is what Moshe stresses in Sefer Devarim.
- Prophetic vision or veiled encounter – Drawing off Bavli Yevamot 49b, Rashi writes that all prophets (excluding Moshe) see through "a non-transparent glass".8 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.9 Either way, this opaque or non-physical prophetic viewing is what allowed them to survive the revelation.10
- Hashem = an angel – Rashbam adds 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.11
- Cloaked manifestation – In many of the cases in which "כְּבוֹד י"י" is mentioned, the verse also mentions the presence of Hashem's cloud.12 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.13
- Cloud of glory - Alternatively, it is possible that the "glory" refers to the cloud itself,14 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.15
- Rashi suggests that Moshe did see more than others. As mentioned, he claims that while others could only see Hashem through an "opaque glass", Moshe perceived him through a transparent one. Nonetheless, even Moshe only saw "מראה אחוריים" and not "מראה שכינה" for even Moshe cannot see the Shechinah and live.16
- 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.17
Nonphysical Apprehension of Hashem
Humans cannot physically see Hashem. When the 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.21
- 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.22 Other prophets, though, could see images representing Hashem in their prophetic dreams.23
- 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.26 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 Midrash27 (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. If so, one might suggest that 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 sources28 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 Sinai29 and were not privileged to also prophetically see any created image.30
- 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,31 while Ralbag raises the possibility that their understanding was a praiseworthy achievement.32 [For elaboration on these varying understandings of the episode, see Revelation to the Elders at Sinai.]
- Hashem's glory – Shadal33 asserts that Moshe requested to see the created light of Hashem's glory, not in a prophetic dream but while awake.34 Hashem responded that it is impossible to view it frontally, but allowed him to do so in passing.35
- Comprehension of the Divine – According to Rambam, R. Avraham b. HaRambam,36 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.37
Revelation of Hashem's Glory
Verses which speak of Hashem appearing to man must be reinterpreted to mean either that Hashem's glory was revealed or that there was mediation of an angel.
- 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. He appears to understand angels in a similar way, considering them a lower, less radiant form of this created light.
- One, though, might alternatively suggest that the two entities are not similar and that while Hashem's glory is created just for the moment, angels are not ephemeral, but exist outside of their role in mediating Divine communication. In fact, this approach might claim that angels can even take on a corporeal form, allowing them to be physically seen by prophets.
- Seeing Hashem's glory – R. Saadia asserts that the phrase refers not to the inability to see Hashem's bodily form, as He has none,47 but to the inability to see 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 restricted to refer to only an indirect, prophetic, or veiled vision thereof.48
- Comprehending Hashem – One could alternatively suggest that this verse refers to the impossibility of totally comprehending Hashem. This, though, does not preclude those worthy of seeing Hashem's glory or an angel from doing so even directly.
- Cloaking Hashem's glory – R. Saadia maintains that the cloud or fire which periodically appears to the people in the Wilderness is also referred to as "כְּבוֹד י"י" because it, too, serves to verify that Hashem is speaking to the nation's leaders. According to him, though, the cloud and fire are likely not themselves manifestations of Hashem's glory but rather house Hashem's light within them,54 obscuring it enough to allow humans to look.55
- Manifestation of Hashem's glory – If, though, one posits that it is physically possible to see Hashem's glory directly, then one might identify the fire/cloud with Hashem's glory itself.56 Even the masses might directly see Hashem's glory on occasion, be it at festive episodes like the Consecration of the Tabernacle,57 or when Hashem is especially angry58 and needs His presence known.
- R. Saadia maintains that Moshe requested that despite the general inability of humans to directly view Hashem's glory, that Hashem, nonetheless, give him the power to do so. Hashem replied that Moshe 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 final, less powerful rays ("וְרָאִיתָ אֶת אֲחֹרָי").59
- Those who posit that it is not unique to see Hashem's glory might explain that Moshe was speaking about comprehending Hashem's essence and was told that total comprehension was impossible, but partial understanding was attainable.