Difference between revisions of "Seeing Hashem/2"
m |
|||
Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
<div class="overview"> | <div class="overview"> | ||
<h2>Overview</h2> | <h2>Overview</h2> | ||
− | <p>Commentators struggle to understand how Hashem reveals Himself to mankind and what the text implies when it states that an individual "saw Hashem". | + | <p>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 physical 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.</p> |
− | + | <p>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 to have taken place in a prophetic dream, where man might imagine Hashem even in human form, or to refer to cognitive insight, comprehension of 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. is.</p></div> | |
<approaches> | <approaches> | ||
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 | + | <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 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>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> | ||
Line 100: | Line 100: | ||
<point><b>Face to face encounter at Sinai</b> – According to this approach, the episode is described as a "face to face" encounter not because the people saw Hashem directly, but because they<i> heard</i> Him directly.<fn>According to R. Saadia, Hashem's words were directed at Moshe and the nation overheard them. Though at first glance it would be difficult to refer to this as "face to face", it is possible that R. Saadia thinks that as opposed to most prophecies, this one was not mediated by an angel, and in that sense it was direct.</fn> All they saw at Sinai was the brilliance of His glory which had descended on the mountain, itself shrouded in fire and smoke,<fn>See Shemot 19:18, "וְהַר סִינַי עָשַׁן כֻּלּוֹ מִפְּנֵי אֲשֶׁר יָרַד עָלָיו י״י בָּאֵשׁ וַיַּעַל עֲשָׁנוֹ כְּעֶשֶׁן הַכִּבְשָׁן".</fn> not Hashem Himself.</point> | <point><b>Face to face encounter at Sinai</b> – According to this approach, the episode is described as a "face to face" encounter not because the people saw Hashem directly, but because they<i> heard</i> Him directly.<fn>According to R. Saadia, Hashem's words were directed at Moshe and the nation overheard them. Though at first glance it would be difficult to refer to this as "face to face", it is possible that R. Saadia thinks that as opposed to most prophecies, this one was not mediated by an angel, and in that sense it was direct.</fn> All they saw at Sinai was the brilliance of His glory which had descended on the mountain, itself shrouded in fire and smoke,<fn>See Shemot 19:18, "וְהַר סִינַי עָשַׁן כֻּלּוֹ מִפְּנֵי אֲשֶׁר יָרַד עָלָיו י״י בָּאֵשׁ וַיַּעַל עֲשָׁנוֹ כְּעֶשֶׁן הַכִּבְשָׁן".</fn> not Hashem Himself.</point> | ||
<point><b>Elders at Sinai</b> – R. Saadia and R"Y Albo assert that when the verse states, "וַיִּרְאוּ אֵת אֱ-לֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל / וַיֶּחֱזוּ אֶת הָאֱ-לֹהִים", this, too, refers to the glory of Hashem rather than Hashem Himself.<fn>See also Targum Onkelos who writes, "וַחֲזוֹ יָת<b> יְקָר</b> אֱלָהָא דְּיִשְׂרָאֵל".</fn>  One might question, though, what was so unique about the vision, considering that the nation had also seen Hashem's glory on the mountain. They might answer that the nation saw this created light only from a far distance and while it was heavily veiled.<fn>As mentioned, the mountain was covered by a thick cloud and dense smoke when the glory descended.</fn> The elders, on the other hand, merited to view it from much closer and while less obscured.<fn>If one does not agree with R. Saadia that Hashem's glory can never be seen directly, then it is possible that, in contrast to the nation whose vision was clouded, the elders merited to see the light clearly.  .</fn></point> | <point><b>Elders at Sinai</b> – R. Saadia and R"Y Albo assert that when the verse states, "וַיִּרְאוּ אֵת אֱ-לֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל / וַיֶּחֱזוּ אֶת הָאֱ-לֹהִים", this, too, refers to the glory of Hashem rather than Hashem Himself.<fn>See also Targum Onkelos who writes, "וַחֲזוֹ יָת<b> יְקָר</b> אֱלָהָא דְּיִשְׂרָאֵל".</fn>  One might question, though, what was so unique about the vision, considering that the nation had also seen Hashem's glory on the mountain. They might answer that the nation saw this created light only from a far distance and while it was heavily veiled.<fn>As mentioned, the mountain was covered by a thick cloud and dense smoke when the glory descended.</fn> The elders, on the other hand, merited to view it from much closer and while less obscured.<fn>If one does not agree with R. Saadia that Hashem's glory can never be seen directly, then it is possible that, in contrast to the nation whose vision was clouded, the elders merited to see the light clearly.  .</fn></point> | ||
− | <point><b>The nation's viewing of  כְבוֹד י״י</b> – According to R. Saadia, the cloud or fire which periodically appears to the people in the Wilderness is also referred to as "כְּבוֹד י"י" as it, too, serves to verify that Hashem is speaking to the nation's 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 even the masses to look.<fn>Alternatively, he might maintain that the cloud and fire do not even house Hashem's light, and are their own distinct entities, referred to as "כבוד י"י" only because they take on the same function as the created glory of Hashem.</fn> | + | <point><b>The nation's viewing of  כְבוֹד י״י</b> – According to R. Saadia, the cloud or fire which periodically appears to the people in the Wilderness is also referred to as "כְּבוֹד י"י" as it, too, serves to verify that Hashem is speaking to the nation's 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 even the masses to look.<fn>Alternatively, he might maintain that the cloud and fire do not even house Hashem's light, and are their own distinct entities, referred to as "כבוד י"י" only because they take on the same function as the created glory of Hashem.</fn></point> |
<point><b>Moshe's request: "הַרְאֵנִי נָא אֶת כְּבֹדֶךָ"</b> – 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").‎<fn>See R"Y Bekhor Shor similarly.</fn></point> | <point><b>Moshe's request: "הַרְאֵנִי נָא אֶת כְּבֹדֶךָ"</b> – 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").‎<fn>See R"Y Bekhor Shor similarly.</fn></point> | ||
<point><b>Mediating role of 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.  This, then, is a second motivating factor to reinterpret any verses which speak of a prophet speaking to or seeing "Hashem" to refer to an angel.<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>Mediating role of 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.  This, then, is a second motivating factor to reinterpret any verses which speak of a prophet speaking to or seeing "Hashem" to refer to an angel.<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> |
Version as of 13:48, 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". Rashbam allows for direct physical 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.
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 to have taken place in a prophetic dream, where man might imagine Hashem even in human form, or to refer to cognitive insight, comprehension of 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. is.
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.
- R. Saadia asserts that it refers not to the inability to see Hashem's bodily form, as He has none,42 but 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 or veiled vision thereof.43
- 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 from doing so even directly.