Face To Face - Panim El Panim - An Introduction To Negative Knowledge.

In the previous post, I explained that Peh el Peh is a metaphor for a type of prophecy that does not involve the imaginative faculty and therefore can be transmitted verbatim without the prophet’s personal interpretation. I will continue translating Rambam in Hilchot Yesodei Hatorah chapter 7 where he describes the differences between the prophecy of Moshe Rabbeinu and that of other prophets.

כל הנביאים, על ידי מלאך; לפיכך רואין מה שהן רואין במשל וחידה. ומשה רבנו, לא על ידי מלאך,

שנאמר "פה אל פה אדבר בו"

ונאמר "ודיבר ה' אל משה פנים אל פנים

And it says, and God spoke to Moshe face to face.

As an additional prooftext that Moshe’s prophecy did not involve the imaginative, Rambam brings this verse located towards the end of the story of the golden calf (Shemot 33) which describes the dialogue between God and Moshe as being “face to face”. In discussing the term Panim “face”, Rambam in MN1:37 writes –

“It is also a term denoting the presence and station of an individual…. In this sense it is said: And the lord spoke unto Moshe face to face – which means, as a presence to another presence without an intermediary, as is said: Come let us look one another in the face.”

Lest we think that “presence” in this case would denote that there was some kind of tangible entity that Moshe experienced as facing him, Rambam continues:

“Thus Scripture says: The lord spoke to you face to face. In another passage, it explains, saying: You heard the voice of words but you saw no figure, only a voice. Hence, this kind of speaking and hearing are described as being face to face.”

Clearly the “presence” that was apprehended in this face off between God and the people was just a sense of an entity, the source of the “voice”. In other words, there is a kind of apprehension during a prophetic experience that changes the perception of the prophet. Rambam explains the uniqueness of this apprehension as being –

“Similarly the words, And the Lord spoke to Moshe face to face, describe His speaking as being in the form of an address [to Moshe]. Accordingly, it is said: Then he heard the voice speaking to him. It has accordingly been made clear to you that the hearing of a speech without the intermediary of an angel is described as being face to face.”

When the prophet experiences the prophecy as coming directly from the source without the intermediary of an angel, when it requires no interpretation of the hearer, it is called “face to face”. And again lest we think that the prophet perceives the source as coming from an entity that speaks with a sound, like all human speech, Rambam again forewarns us –

“In this sense it is also said: But my face shall not be seen, meaning that the true reality of My existence as it veritably is cannot be grasped.”

I read here Rambam as telling us that for a prophecy to not require the intermediary of the imaginative faculty, the prophet must understand that the reality of God’s existence cannot be grasped. When one can accept the truth that God exists but that all we say about Him including existence is only a linguistic necessity, that the reality is that we humans cannot grasp His essence, only then can the intellect alone operate when speculating about God. The apprehension that includes attributes and cannot completely divest God from the physical, requires the imaginative to distill the information and transmit it to the intellect for rational analysis and interpretation.

To elaborate a little further and attempt to put this into practical terms, I am suggesting that there are two levels of speculation about God. As human beings, we have to start looking for God through nature. If we accept that God has willed this existence, we see Him in that same existence. We analyze His actions and their result and extrapolate from that what God had in mind in creation. It requires a small step to conclude erroneously that God is in nature as His will is in it from our perspective. Our imaginative faculty which is experience based takes us to that thinking as that is our experience with our physical existence. We see the life force in all living things and we assume that God the ultimate life force of everything as another though necessary component of existence. But our intellectual understanding of God is that He is the only unique non-contingent entity and thus totally removed from the physical. He therefore cannot be that ultimate life force in the sense that we experience these things and the picture we have in our mind as a result of this speculation is only that – a picture.

Knowing God through nature was the level of understanding of the divine until Moshe came. He introduced the idea that we can only know what God is “not”. He is not anything that can be defined by humans. In human terms when we say that something “exists”, we are really saying that it “came” into existence from not existing. In other words, “existence” is a relative term. We therefore cannot use the term “existent” when talking about God who existed always and was never non-existent. We just use it for lack of another word to indicate that singularity - eternal existence. So when we say that God exists from eternity to eternity, we are really saying that he is NOT existent in the sense that we know existence to be. The same would apply to every attribute that we use about Him. Explaining the meaning of God telling Moshe in response to his question of how to explain to the people about God that sent him to take them out of Egypt, Rambam in MN 1:63 writes –

“Accordingly God made known to Moshe the knowledge that he was to convey to them and through which they would acquire a true notion of the existence of God, this knowledge being: I am that I am (Shemot 3:14)…. Accordingly, Scripture makes, as it were, a clear statement that the subject [I am] is identical with the predicate [I am]. This makes it clear that He is existent not through existence. This notion may be summarized and interpreted in the following way: the existent that is the existent, or the necessarily existent. That is what demonstration necessarily leads to: namely, to the view that there is a necessarily existent thing that has never been, or ever will be, nonexistent.”

Coming back to where this post started, Panim el Panim – face to face – connotes a kind of sophisticated apprehension of the divine which perceives a “presence” that in reality is a non-presence in our definition of “presence”. It is that apprehension that results in a prophecy that is described as Peh el Peh where the prophet repeats the prophecy word for word – verbatim – without his own interpretation. In his presentation of Moshe’s prophecy Rambam first brings the text peh el peh which is the end result followed by Panim el Panim which describes the process of apprehension that resulted in this prophecy.

Next post will address the third prooftext in this Halacha - ונאמר "ותמונת ה', יביט .

Moshe's Prophecy - the metaphor "Mouth to Mouth" - Peh El Peh.

In a private exchange with Rabbi Yoni Sacks, we touched on the subject of Moshe Rabbeinu’s prophecy. When talking about his prophecy, the Torah refers to it with two different expressions - peh el peh and panim el panim.

וְדִבֶּר יְהוָה אֶל-מֹשֶׁה פָּנִים אֶל-פָּנִים, כַּאֲשֶׁר יְדַבֵּר אִישׁ אֶל-רֵעֵהוּ

And the Lord spoke unto Moses face to face, as a man speaks unto his friend. (Shemot 33:11)

And

ח  פֶּה אֶל-פֶּה אֲדַבֶּר-בּוֹ, וּמַרְאֶה וְלֹא

 בְחִידֹת, וּתְמֻנַת יְהוָה, יַבִּיט;.

8 Mouth to mouth do I speak with him, and vision and not in riddles, and the likeness of the Lord he beholds … (Bamidbar 12:8)

Rambam in Hilchot Yesodei Hatorah 7 explains the features of Moshe’s prophecy as compared to that of the other prophets. Among a list of differences he points to these two verses –

  

כל הנביאים, על ידי מלאך; לפיכך רואין מה שהן רואין במשל וחידה.  ומשה רבנו, לא על ידי מלאך,

שנאמר "פה אל פה אדבר בו"

ונאמר "ודיבר ה' אל משה פנים אל פנים

ונאמר "ותמונת ה', יביט

כלומר שאין שם משל, אלא רואה הדבר על בורייו בלא חידה בלא משל; הוא שהתורה

מעידה עליו, "ומראה ולא בחידות", שאינו מתנבא בחידה אלא במראה, שרואה

הדבר על בורייו

.

יכל הנביאים, יראין ונבהלין ומתמוגגים.  ומשה רבנו, אינו כן; הוא שהכתוב אומר "כאשר ידבר איש אל ריעהו"

כמו שאין אדם נבהל לשמוע דברי חברו, כך היה כוח בדעתו של משה רבנו להבין דברי הנבואה; והוא עומד על עומדו שלם.

I will translate and comment as I go along.

“All prophets prophesize via an angel, which causes them to see that which they see, in parables and riddles while Moshe Rabbeinu [does not prophesize] via an angel.”

What exactly is an angel? Rambam in MN 2:6 explains that it is a very broad term that indicates a messenger or intermediary in all its meanings. It is used in Tanach as a description for the fulfillment of God’s will whether it is through natural events such as winds or fires or singularities. In the context of prophecy, Rambam is explicit –

“Accordingly Midrash Kohelet has the following text: When man sleeps, his soul speaks to the angel, and the angel to the cherub. Thereby they have stated plainly to him who understands and cognizes intellectually that the imaginative faculty is likewise called an angel and that the intellect is called a cherub. How beautiful must this appear to him who knows, and how distasteful to the ignorant!”

One of the most common forms of prophecy is through dreams. The way those prophetic dreams work, is by stimulating the imaginative faculty [angel] which apprehends abstract matters in their physical forms which are then deciphered by the intellect [cherub] as to their true meaning. The way the prophecy is then transmitted by the prophet to others, is subject to the prophet’s own interpretation and thus is dependent on his level of intellectual perfection. A prominent example of this in Tanach is the short cryptic description of the divinity by Yeshayahu and the more expansive one by Yechezkel. The Rabbis (Hagigah 13b) comment that Yeshayahu was as a Ben Krach – a city dweller – while Yechezkel was a Ben Kfar – a village dweller – a metaphor for their respective level of perfected apprehension which resulted in the different depiction of the same vision. On the other hand, Moshe apprehended the prophecy with his intellect thus the prophecy did not require interpretation by him. He was able to transmit it verbatim without his personal input. This is the kind of prophecy that was needed to transmit laws, whose presentation need to be precise.   

“After we have spoken of the essence of prophecy, have made known its true reality, and have made clear that the prophecy of Moshe our master is different from that of the others, we shall say that the call to the Law followed necessarily from that apprehension alone” (MN2:39)

Rambam goes on to explain that the uniqueness of Moshe Rabbeinu’s prophecy is necessary for the immutability of the Torah. In other words, the repeated insistence by the Torah of the uniqueness of his prophecy is to make that point that the Torah cannot ever be changed by any subsequent prophet including Elyahu or Mashiach.

Rambam offers the following textual support for Moshe’s unique prophecy -

1. “Mouth to mouth do I speak with him”

Rambam in MN2:45 explains this term cryptically.

“You will perhaps ask this question: among the different degrees of prophecy there is one in which prophets, e.g., Isaiah, Micah, appear to hear God addressing them. How can this be reconciled with the principle that all prophets are prophetically addressed through an angel, except Moses our Teacher, in reference to whom Scripture says, "Mouth to mouth I speak to him" (Num. xii. 8)? I answer, this is really the case, the medium here being the imaginative faculty that hears in a prophetic dream God speaking; but Moses heard the voice addressing him "from above the covering of the ark from between the two cherubim" (Exod. xxv. 22) without the medium of the imaginative faculty.”

Mouth to mouth is identical to hearing the voice from “between the two cherubim”. We saw earlier that Cherub is a metaphor for the intellect. The two cherubim are thus the two intellects, men’s and the source of prophecy, the Active Intellect which in Medieval Philosophy stood for knowledge at its source. A prophet may imagine that God is speaking to him and delivering a message which needed deciphering while Moshe “knew” with his intellect that God was speaking to him. The message that Moshe apprehended needed no further interpretation and could be transmitted further in the form he “heard” it.

If we were to categorize Peh el Peh, we would say that it describes the process of transmission/reception of prophecy – it goes directly from the mouth of the Giver so to say, to the mouth of the prophet without the prophet’s interpretation.

As an aside, it is worthwhile to consider that a metaphor for mouth to mouth is kissing. When we say that Moshe, Aharon and Miriam died through kissing, Mitat Neshikah, we are saying that their physical end came about in the ecstasy of this highest level of prophecy and apprehension where there was no interference of the imaginative.

2. And the Lord spoke unto Moses face to face.

Another description of Moshe’s prophecy is the metaphor “face to face”. I will address this aspect of Moshe’s prophecy in the next post as I continue with the translation/comment of this Halacha.

Note: this series of posts, though at first blush seem to be a detour in my discussion of Ta’amei Hamitzvot, are really part of that same discussion. The connection will become clearer as I continue.

The Voice - Insight and Confirmation

Understanding “Kol” - the voice - as an apprehension rather than a sensory experience, Rambam in MN 2:33 explains –

“It is clear to me that at the gathering at Mount Sinai, not everything that reached Moshe also reached all Israel. Speech was addressed to Moshe alone: for this reason in the Asseret Hadibrot the second person singular is used, [it would have been plural if addressed to all - DG], and he went to the foot of the mountain and communicated to the people what he heard. ”

In other words the difference between the apprehension of Moshe and that of the people is that they had a similar experience he was having, but while he was able to make sense of that experience and translate it into words, their experience was no more than an intellectual insight into Moshe’s experience.

The problem with understanding Kol as a prophetic apprehension by a mass of people is how to square it away with Rambam’s understanding of prophecy as a natural result of advanced metaphysical and theological speculation. How can one explain that a large group, men, women and children all were made into intellectual giants in a few days? In fact, Rambam discusses the whole Sinai experience in that context. In the chapter that lays out his basic theory on prophecy (MN2:32) he ends the discussion by stating –

As to the revelation on Mount Sinai, all saw the great fire, and heard the fearful thundering, that caused such an extraordinary terror; but only those of them who were duly qualified were prophetically inspired, each one according to his capacities.

Apparently, a person present at Sinai could experience Kol without having reached the level of prophecy. The people were taught certain necessary theological truths that allowed them to grasp intellectually and assimilate into their minds the existence of a true divine inspiration. Rambam does not define further what that apprehension was and considers that to be one of the great mysteries about that experience “The true reality of that apprehension and its modality are quite hidden from us”. Along the same lines, Rabbeinu Avraham, Rambam’s son in his Pirush on Chumash sees the three preparatory days as days of teaching theology and philosophy to the masses. He wonders at what such a crash course could be composed of to be successful. He attributes the lack of reports and details about the content of those teachings in the Torah, to their great depth and therefore secrecy. This Kol experience was unique. It never recurred since Sinai nor will it ever recur. It however confirmed to those present that Moshe was legitimate and that the reports he was bringing to them were authentic.

As we know, Rambam holds that the existence of God is empirically provable. The arguments for the existence of God are therefore something one can be taught and apparently that was one of the matters that was already accepted by the Jewish people who left Egypt. That is how I understand the answer that God gave to Moshe when he asked Him on what basis the people would accept him as their leader. He told him to tell them that he is a messenger of the same God they were taught about by their parents, the unique transcendental non-contingent entity. However, as God’s essence cannot be understood, it remained an abstract and intellectual argument. It is difficult for humans, who live in a material world, to really assimilate the existence of a transcendental God. Kol was able to change that and it confirmed the existence of God who was only known intellectually. That experience confirmed that God is transcendent and really “exists”. It is similar to a scientist who is able to confirm a scientific theory with a successful experiment. (See Devarim 4:12 and on).

The Israelites heard the first and the second commandments from God, i.e., they learnt the truth of the principles contained in these two commandments in the same manner as Moses, and not through Moses. For these two principles, the existence of God and His Unity, can be arrived at by means of reasoning, and whatever can be established by proof is known by the prophet in the same way as by any other person; he has no advantage in this respect. These two principles were not known through prophecy alone… When the people heard this voice, their soul left them; and in this voice, they perceived the first two commandments. (MN 2:33)

The convergence of the intellectual apprehension of the existence of God with the Kol experience legitimized the Kol experience and made it believable and acceptable to all. Kol worked because it confirmed something already known intellectually. Moshe who was much more knowledgeable could understand the other eight commandments while the people could only “hear” what was known to them independently – God’s existence, transcendence and uniqueness.

It must, however, be noticed that the people did not understand the voice in the same degree as Moses did. I will point out to you this important fact, and show you that it was a matter of tradition with the nation, and well known by our Sages. (ibid)

Of course, Rambam points out that even that apprehension of God was each according to his level of intellectual development. Moshe the greatest thinker of his time had an incomparably deeper understanding than the rest of the people.

This Kol experience coupled with the natural displays of thunder and lightening impressed the people to such a point that they agreed to submit to the yoke of heaven – the Torah that Moshe was about to give them.

Hearing the Voice

וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה אֶל-מֹשֶׁה, הִנֵּה אָנֹכִי
בָּא אֵלֶיךָ בְּעַב הֶעָנָן, בַּעֲבוּר יִשְׁמַע הָעָם בְּדַבְּרִי
עִמָּךְ, וְגַם-בְּךָ יַאֲמִינוּ לְעוֹלָם

9 And the LORD said unto Moshe - 'Look, I am about to come to you in a thick cloud, so that the people may hear when I speak with you, and they will also believe in you forever.' (Shemot 19:9)

Rambam in Hilchot Yesodei Hatorah chapter 8 comments –

ומניין שבמעמד הר סיניי לבדו, היא הראיה לנבואתו שהיא אמת שאין בו
דופי--שנאמר "הנה אנוכי בא אליך בעב הענן, בעבור ישמע העם בדברי עימך, וגם
בך יאמינו לעולם
מכלל שקודם דבר זה, לא האמינו בו נאמנות שהיא עומדת לעולם, אלא נאמנות שיש אחריה הרהור ומחשבה

How do we know that Ma’amad Har Sinai alone is the proof that his [Moshe’s] prophecy is unquestionably true? For it says – “'Look, I am about to come to you in a thick cloud, so that the people may hear when I speak with you, and they will also believe in you forever.” We see from this that before this experience, they did not have an eternal belief in him but rather one that with time doubts and thoughts [creep in].

In my last post, I quoted Rashba who elaborated on the virtues of skepticism basing himself on Rambam’s understanding of this Passuk. Here I want to focus on the things mentioned in this verse that were supposed to clear up the skepticism. Rambam (MN 2:33) notes that the verse reads בעבור ישמע העם בדברי עימך - so that the people may hear when I speak with you – which implies that they did not necessarily hear the words themselves, only that Moshe was spoken to by God. In fact, there is a verse that makes that clear.

יב וַיְדַבֵּר יְהוָה אֲלֵיכֶם, מִתּוֹךְ הָאֵשׁ: קוֹל דְּבָרִים אַתֶּם שֹׁמְעִים, וּתְמוּנָה אֵינְכֶם רֹאִים זוּלָתִי קוֹל.

12 And the LORD spoke unto you out of the midst of the fire; you heard the voice of words, but saw no figure only a voice. (Devarim 4:12)

The people did not hear the words themselves, just a voice – a sound. The word the Torah uses for this type of apprehension is קוֹל. What does “hearing” in this context mean? Is it a sensory experience or is “hearing” in the sense of understanding? In a discussion of the meaning of “face to face”[1] as in –

ד פָּנִים בְּפָנִים, דִּבֶּר יְהוָה עִמָּכֶם בָּהָר--מִתּוֹךְ הָאֵשׁ.

4 The LORD spoke with you face to face in the mount out of the midst of the fire- (Devarim 5:4)

Rambam in MN 1:37 comments –

“It פָּנִים is also a term denoting the presence and station of an individual… In the same sense the word is used in the following passage, "And the Lord spoke unto Moses face to face," which means as a presence to another presence without any intervening medium between them….In another passage, it explains, saying - “You heard the voice of the words, but saw no figure only a voice" (ib. iv. 12). Hence, this type of speaking and hearing is termed "face to face”… Thus it will be clear to you that the perception of the Divine voice without the intervention of an angel is expressed by face to face.”

The result of the experience of “hearing” God “speaking” is a perception that the person is standing face to face with Him. This type of “hearing” could be sensory if the speaking was a physical voice. However, when God “speaks”, Rambam tells us, it is only an apprehension by us that there is speech. God is transcendental and does not speak with a mouth and voice.

“… I do not think that I need explain to you the inadmissibility of the attribute of speech in reference to God. This is the case particularly in view of the general consensus of our community on the Torah being created. This is meant to signify that His speech that is attributed to Him is created. It was ascribed to Him only because the words heard by Moshe were created and brought into being by God, just as He created all the things that He has created and brought into being.… When we are told that God addressed the Prophets and spoke to them, our minds are merely to receive a notion that there is a Divine science which the Prophets attain… The two terms, when applied to God, can only have one of the two last-mentioned significations – will or volition, or a notion that has been grasped by the understanding having come from God. There is no difference whether the divine thought became known to man by means of an actual voice, or by one of those ways of prophecy which we shall make clear. We must not suppose that in speaking God employed voice or sound.” (MN1:65)

I have highlighted what to me is a very important statement. “Hearing” in the context of man who hears God is an apprehension. How that apprehension came to that man is irrelevant as long as he is sure that it is divine. What counts is that the person has apprehended some divine science and knowledge. Clearly when the people “heard” the voice, it was not a sensory experience but rather one akin to prophecy which we have seen is the result of an intellectual process. When the Torah says that the people “heard” God speak to Moshe, they experienced an apprehension that they could not translate into coherent words. Rambam in Yesodei Hatorah uses the following metaphor –

והקול מדבר אליו; ואנו שומעים: משה, משה--לך אמור להם כך וכך.

And the voice spoke to him and we “hear”, Moshe, Moshe go tell them such and such.

By themselves experiencing prophecy to an extent, the people were able to accept and understand that Moshe too has prophetic experiences though much more intense one, so much more intense that his prophecy was incomparable to theirs.

Following the rule that I set myself on length of posts, I will leave further discussion of the verse I started with here for another post. So far, we have seen that “speaking” and “hearing” the voice are not material or sensory but intellectual events. More to come on this subject especially Kol.

Shabbat Shalom.

[1] Note this is different from Peh el Peh – mouth to mouth.

Our Ancestors Taught Us That Skepticism Is A Virtue!

Having understood the meaning of Shechinah as something we visualize in our mind rather than a factual entity, we are now ready to try to understand the experience at Har Sinai. I would however like to quote a remark that Rambam makes at the end of the chapter that discusses the issue in depth –

“The true reality of that apprehension and its modality are quite hidden from us, for nothing like it happened before and will not happen after. Know this.” (MN2:33)

First, let us look at how Rambam introduces the discussion of Ma’amad Har Sinai in his Mishne Torah. (Yesodei Hatorah chapter 8)

א משה רבנו--לא האמינו בו ישראל, מפני האותות שעשה: שהמאמין על
פי האותות--יש בליבו דופי, שאפשר שייעשה האות בלאט וכישוף. אלא כל האותות
שעשה במדבר, לפי הצורך עשאן--לא להביא ראיה על הנבואה: צרך להשקיע את
המצריים, קרע את הים והצלילם בו. צרכנו למזון, הוריד לנו את המן. צמאו,
בקע להם את האבן. כפרו בו עדת קורח, בלעה אותם הארץ. וכן, שאר כל האותות.

The Jewish people did not believe in Moshe Rabbeinu because of the [miraculous] signs he made. One who believes because of signs has doubts for he always wonders if the sign was not produced through sleight of hand and magic. All the signs [Moshe] made in the desert were done as needed and not to prove [the validity] of prophecy. It was necessary to drown the Egyptians; he split the sea and sunk them in it. We needed food; he arranged for the Mann. They thirsted; he split the rock. Korach’s faction rebelled against him; the earth swallowed them. And so goes for all the other signs.

As an introduction to the event at Sinai, Rambam tells us that miracles do not prove that man can interact with the divine powers. Any intelligent person will immediately question an abnormal event and see it as manipulation rather than proof of anything real. Interestingly, Rashba, (Rabbi Shlomo ben Aderet 1235-1310) a pupil of the Kabbalist Ramban (1194-1270) and himself a noted Mekubal discusses Rambam’s take on the Sinai experience in a responsa and presents this skeptical view very succinctly. He was asked whether he believes that there were miraculous unnatural physical events at Sinai and also whether the people experienced a sensory perception. In other words, did the mountain tremble, did the people hear the noises and so on or are these all metaphors? If on the other hand they are metaphors for a prophetic experience, how could such a mass of people acquire prophecy without being philosophers and thinkers? I plan to analyze his response at length as I go along with the subject, but here I want to focus on his take on the effect of miracles. He argues that because miracles should be questioned as to their authenticity, they have only a temporary effect. Here is how he puts it –

. האחד, שממנו למדו האבות,שלא [יתפתו] אחר הדברים שיכנס בהם שום ספק, עד שיבחנוהו הרבה שאין בו צד פקפוק אלא האמת. והוא שהי' משה נביא האמת, עליו השלום, מסתפק אם יאמינו לו, אע"פ שהוא בא לבשרם להצילם מן העבודה הקשה. כאמרו: לא יאמינו לי.וכלל הענין ההוא, לפי שידענו שלא יאמינו, רק בדבר אמתי והכרחי, אין בו שום צד פקפוק. וע"כ אף כשהגדיל ה' לעשות הנפלאות והנוראות במצרים, עד שהוציאם בזרוע נטויה, ובמוראים גדולים. עוד הוצרך להוציא הפקפוק מלבבם, מפני שכל מה שנעשה במצרים, אפשר שנתפשטו בהם, או מקריים טבעים, או עניני החרטומי'. ולפיכך, לא האמינו במשה אמונה מוחלטת, עד עמדם בקריעת ים סוף יורה על זה, מה שאמר שם: ויאמינו בה' ובמשה עבדו. ותרגם המתרגם: ובנביאות משה עבדיה. שזה באמת נמלט מטבע המקריים, שאין הים נקרע במקרה בלילה אחד, ובבקר ישוב לאיתנו. וזה הוציא מלבבם הפקפוק, אמנם לשעתם. והוא שאמרה רחב הזונה: כי שמענו את אשר הוביש ה' את מי ים סוף מפניכם. לא הזכירה אחד מן הפלאים והמופתי' הקודמים במצרים, רק זה לבדו, לכונה שאמרתי. ואמנם, אף לאחר קריעת ים סוף, נכנס עוד בלבם (ספקו) צד פקפוק, אולי משה לבד שהיה חכם מכל האדם, ומכל מי שקדמו, ידע לעשות כן, והם לא יבחינוהו. וחזרו עוד להמשך אחר הספק והפקפוק. ומעתה, לא נשאר להם שום בחינה בנבואת עשה, זולתי שיגיעו הם בעצמם לענין נבואי, להוציא מלבם כל פקפוק. וזה היה במעמד הנכבד ההוא, ונתאמת האמת ונצדק קודש

“One reason [why Sinai was a prophetic experience] is that our ancestors taught that one should not be seduced by matters that are questionable until they check them out thoroughly; satisfying themselves that there is not kernel of doubt, only truth. That is why Moshe, the true prophet, was concerned that they would doubt him even though he came to tell them that he was going to save them from the hard labor [they were suffering], as he said “behold they will not believe me”. That was so because we know they would not believe anything unless it was true, undeniable and self-evident. That is why even after God brought about the great and fearsome miracles in Egypt to the point that they were freed by His outstretched hand and fearsome acts, Moshe still needed to remove any further doubts from their minds. For everything that happened in Egypt could possibly be explained as a natural occurrence or magic. They continued therefore to doubt until they came to the splitting of the Yam Suf. That is why the Targum translates, “they believed in God and Moshe His servant” as “they believed in God and in Moshe’s prophecy”. For this was too far out to be natural. The sea does not split by chance in the middle of the night and is back to its normal by daybreak. However this only removed their doubts temporarily… for even then they started doubting and thinking that possibly Moshe who was smarter than all men past and present was able to make this happen. They therefore again became skeptical. Therefore, the only way this skepticism would disappear was only if they themselves experienced prophecy. That was what happened during this glorious stand and truth and holiness was verified.” (Shut Harashba 4:234)

How different was the thinking of the Rishonim! They saw skepticism as a virtue so unlike our community’s contemporary thinking. Intelligent people do not accept anything without a “double blind study”! Our ancestors were smart and left us a legacy that we have unfortunately lost along the way. Rashba understands that Sinai was an experience that did not involve physical miracles only. As we will see Rambam goes even further and seems to doubt that there were any abnormal physical events that could not be explained away naturally. To both of these thinkers though, the main event was a matter of apprehension.

Not all Rishonim saw it this way. R. Yehudah Halevi in his Kuzari and even further back Rav Nissim Gaon in his Megilat Setarim felt that only sensory and physical experience could verify Moshe’s prophecy. Following in their path, I find that we would base our whole belief in Moshe’s prophecy on a very tenuous argument. I believe that Rambam’s approach avoids these pitfalls, as we will see.

In this post, I touched on the purpose and goal of Ma’amad Har Sinai – verification of Moshe’s immutable prophecy. In the coming posts I will touch on the experience itself as explained by Rambam (as I understand him.)

What is Shechinah (part 2) - Makom and Kevod Hashem

In the last post we saw that God does not descend or for that matter go up, pass or change place in any way, but rather it is we who visualize such actions during our contemplations about God. God as the ultimate transcendental entity is not bound by time and place. In fact, the word “place” does not apply to Him at all but rather it is we who visualize God this way when we try to relate Him to our reality and existence. It is a hierarchical position rather than a physical place that is created by our minds as we try to apprehend God.

“In the verse, "Blessed be the glory of God (Kevod Hashem) from His place" (mimekomo) (Ezek. iii. 12), makom has this figurative meaning. The verse may be paraphrased "Blessed be the Lord according to His rank and the greatness of His portion in existence". Wherever makom is applied to God, it expresses the same idea, namely, the rank of His existence, there being nothing like or similar to that existence, as will be shown below.” (MN1:8)

When we say God “exists”, existence as it applies to Him is non-contingent. To us that type of existence is unimaginable. In our reality, there is nothing that exists completely independently and alone. It must be caused by something, be located somewhere and have limits, interacting with something else. “Existence” as applied to God, the only non-contingent entity by definition, is therefore equivocal and of a different rank, hierarchically ahead of everything considering that He is the cause of their existence. That is the subject of the Midrash (Breishit Rabah 68:10)

ויפגע במקום
ר' הונא בשם ר' אמי אמר:
מפני מה מכנין שמו של הקב"ה וקוראין אותו מקום
שהוא מקומו של עולם, ואין עולמו מקומו, מן מה דכתיב (שמות לג

הנה מקום אתי,

הוי, הקדוש ברוך הוא מקומו של עולם, ואין עולמו מקומו.

אמר רבי יצחק

כתיב (דברים לג מעונה אלהי קדם,

אין אנו יודעים אם הקב"ה מעונו של עולמו ואם עולמו מעונו, מן מה דכתיב (תהלים צ

ה' מעון אתה

הוי. הקדוש ברוך הוא מעונו של עולמו, ואין עולמו מעונו.

אמר רבי אבא בר יודן:

לגבור, שהוא רוכב על הסוס וכליו משופעים אילך ואילך, הסוס טפילה לרוכב ואין הרוכב טפילה לסוס, שנאמר

כי תרכב על סוסך

The Midrash starts by saying that God is not placed within the world but rather the world is within Him. Space is a defined area within infinite non-space. Infinite non-space can only be conceived in our mind as it is immaterial, a negative concept. The Midrash follows and says that the world is not God’s dwelling but rather that God is the world’s dwelling. Rambam in MN 1:70 in discussing the word רוכב – to ride - as it applies to God explains -

“The rider is better than the animal upon which he rides. The comparative is only used for the sake of convenience, for the rider is not of the same class as the animal upon which he rides. Furthermore, the rider moves the animal and leads it as he likes; it is as it were his instrument, which he uses according to his will; he is separate from it, apart from it, not connected with it. In like manner, the uppermost sphere, by the rotation of which everything moveable is set in motion, is moved by God, who is separate from the sphere, and is not a power in it. In Bereshit Raba we read that in commenting on the Divine words, "The eternal God is a refuge" (lit., a dwelling, Deut. xxxiii. 27), our Sages said, "He is the dwelling of His world, the world is not His dwelling." This explanation is then followed by the remark, "The horse is secondary to the rider, the rider is not subservient to the horse; this is meant by 'Thou wilt ride upon thy horses'" (Hab. iii. 8). Consider and learn how they described the relation of God to the sphere, asserting that the latter is His instrument, by means of which He rules the universe.”

Rambam understands that Rabbi Abba is explaining Rabbi Yitzchak’s comment. The metaphor of dwelling is an idea of ownership and control. Just like the rider, though the horse carries him, no one would doubt that the rider is in control, so too when we describe God’s relationship to the world as its dwelling, we are saying that He controls it. We sense Him through the results of that control, our existence, which we translate as Him being the dwelling the world resides within, not a matter of space but a hierarchical relationship - He controls it.

In discussing the word Nigash – came close – as in Shemot 24:2 –

ב וְנִגַּשׁ מֹשֶׁה לְבַדּוֹ אֶל-יְהוָה, וְהֵם לֹא יִגָּשׁוּ;

And Moshe alone shall come near unto the LORD; but they shall not come near, after explaining

that “coming near” in this context is nothing more than mental concentration, Rambam adds –

“If, however, you wish to take the words "And Moshe shall draw near" to mean that he shall draw near a certain place in the mountain, whereon the Shechinah was, or, in the words of the Torah, "where the glory of God (Kevod Hashem) abode," you may do so provided you do not lose sight of the truth. There is no difference whether a person stand at the centre of the earth or at the highest point of the ninth sphere, if this were possible, he is no further away from God in the one case, or nearer to Him in the other. Only those who obtain knowledge of Him approach Him; while those who remain ignorant of Him recede from Him.” (MN1:18)

Rambam here equates Shechinah with Kevod Hashem and tells us that both, in their “real” meaning, as opposed to the “acceptable” one, refer to intellectual knowledge of God. In other words, the Shechinah does not rest in a place nor does the Glory of God - the Kevod Hashem – but rather it is man who places them or alternatively God that they represent, in a physical place that is the result of His actions or command but does so only in his mind, intellectually. That is because man cannot fathom “existence” without it taking up space and locate it in a defined place. In discussing the rationale for building the Beit Hamikdash, Rambam explains –

“Avraham selected the west of the mount as the place toward which he turned during his prayers for the Holy of Holies is in the west. This is the meaning of the saving of our Sages, "The Shechinah" (the Glory of God) is in the West" (B. T. Baba B 25a). They stated in the Talmud Yoma that our father Abraham fixed the direction toward which one should turn in prayer, I mean the Temple of the Holy of Holies. I believe that he did so because it was then a general rite to worship the sun as a deity. Undoubtedly all people turned then to the East [worshipping the Sun]. Abraham turned therefore on Mount Moriah to the West, that is, the site of the Sanctuary, and turned his back toward the sun.” (MN3:45)

When the rabbis say the Shechinah is in the West, they are telling us to focus our attention and visualization of God with our back to the sun. We do that to negate the idolatrous beliefs of our ancestors who conflated God with His tool – the sun. Prayer, to be more exact, the Amidah, the Shemona Esreh is a thrice-daily process of focusing and concentrating on our constant search for understanding and knowledge of HKBH. We visualize God during that process. Avraham wanted to make sure that we do not conflate God with His creation, the sun, a common error during his time. (Unfortunately, this is still extant nowadays, even in our communities, the sun having been replaced by other creatures/creations).

I hope that I have made it clear that God is not bound by space and time, thus when we say that God was somewhere, descended, went up or when we say that the prophet ascended, came close and so on, we are only describing an internal visualization rather than a physical fact. With this in mind, I will now try to deal with the experience at Sinai. I just want to end this post by pointing out the practical importance of understanding what Rambam teaches us here. We say the verse mentioned in MN1:8 above at least three times daily –

בָּרוּךְ כְּבוֹד-יְהוָה, מִמְּקוֹמוֹ.

'Blessed be the glory of God from His place'(Yechezkel 3:12)

In this verse, we have the words “Kevod Hashem” and “Mimekomo” all discussed here. I always try to remind myself when saying the passuk that it is one of the central ideas of prayer.

What is Shechinah? ( part 1) -

Before discussing the experience at Sinai, I would like to explore the meaning of Shechinah as it relates to God’s presence. Rav Sa’adyah Gaon in his Hanivchar Be’emunot Vede’ot (Ma’amar 2:10 – page 103 in the Rav Kafieh edition) writes that God creates a form of extreme light and brilliance that takes on different forms which is a representation of God Himself. That creation is referred to as Kevod Hashem and Shechinah. Its purpose is to verify for the prophet that the vision he apprehends in his meditation is really God. It is clear that RSG sees this as a concession to human limitation in apprehending the transcendental.

אנו עונים כי הדמות הזו ברואה, וכן הכסא, והמושב הנישא8 ונושאיו, כולם נבראים, בראם הבורא מזוהר9 כדי שיתאמת לנביאו שהוא אשר ניבא אותו בדבריו, כמו שנבאר במאמר השלישי.10 והיא דמות נכבדה מן המלאכים, עצומה בבריאתה בהירת זוהר, והיא נקראת כבוד ה, ועליה הוא שתיאר אחד הנביאים:

חזה הוית עד די כרסון רמיו ועתיק יומין יתיב11,

ועליה מה שמתארים החכמים שכינה .

Interestingly, Rambam accepts this explanation and further shows that Onkelos too used this idea, that there is a created representation of God. But then he partially discredits it with an interesting twist –

In the passage (Exod. xxiv. 10, lit., "And there was under his feet, like the action of the whiteness of a sapphire stone"), Onkelos, as you know, in his version, considers the word (raglav) "his feet" as a figurative expression and a substitute for "throne"; the words "under his feet" he therefore paraphrases, "And under the throne of his glory." Consider this well, and you will observe with wonder how Onkelos keeps free from the idea of the corporeality of God, and from everything that leads thereto, even in the remotest degree. For he does not say, "and under His throne"; the direct relation of the throne to God, implied in the literal sense of the phrase "His throne," would necessarily suggest the idea that God is supported by a material object, and thus lead directly to the corporeality of God. He therefore refers the throne to His glory, i.e., to the Shechinah, which is a light created for the purpose… You are acquainted with the version of Onkelos [of the passage quoted]. He contents himself with excluding from his version all expressions of corporeality in reference to God, and does not show us what they (the nobles of the children of Israel Exod. xxiv. 10) perceived, or what is meant by that figure. In all similar instances Onkelos also abstains from entering into such questions, and only endeavors to exclude every expression implying corporeality; for the incorporeality of God is a demonstrative truth and an indispensable element in our faith; he could decidedly state all that was necessary in that respect. The interpretation of a simile is a doubtful thing: it may possibly have that meaning, but it may also refer to something else. It contains besides very profound matter, the understanding of which is not a fundamental element in our faith, and the comprehension of which is not easy for the common people. (MN1:28)[1]

In other words, Rambam concedes that this explanation of Shechinah as a created representation of God is a possible interpretation of the metaphor of God being present in a place and time - it may possibly have that meaning. However, he does not believe it to be true - but it may also refer to something else. It is good enough for the plain people, who by accepting this explanation, can accept that when the verse refers to God in physical terms it really talks about a created representation thus negating physicality to God himself. Rambam then continues to give a completely different explanation to the verse in question which I will not address here. The words Shechinah and the root Shachen are discussed in several other places in the Moreh. First, I want to turn to Rambam’s understanding the word Avar – passed – as it refers to God discussed in MN1:21. When God said (Shemot 12:12)

יב וְעָבַרְתִּי בְאֶרֶץ-מִצְרַיִם, בַּלַּיְלָה

הַזֶּה, וְהִכֵּיתִי כָל-בְּכוֹר בְּאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם, מֵאָדָם

וְעַד-בְּהֵמָה; וּבְכָל-אֱלֹהֵי מִצְרַיִם אֶעֱשֶׂה שְׁפָטִים, אֲנִי יְהוָה.

12 For I will go through the land of Egypt in that night, and will smite all the first-born in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgments: I am the LORD.

The meaning is quite clear; we see an action that we attribute to God, we say that He passed through, because that would be how we, as humans, would accomplish such a result. That would apply to any observation on our part of any result that we would attribute to a specific action had we been responsible for it. We therefore say that God acted in such a manner knowing that He does not act in any physical sense. But then we have a much more difficult verse where the word Avar is used about God and there is no action or result to explain it. After the Egel when Moshe wanted to apprehend God’s essence and was denied it but was told that he could only apprehend God’s “back”, he was taught all sciences (MN 1:54). “The words "all my goodness" imply that God promised to show him the whole creation, concerning which it has been stated, "And God saw everything that he had made, and, behold, it was very good" (Gen. I. 31). When I say, "to show him the whole creation," I mean to imply that God promised to make him comprehend the nature of all things, their relation to each other, and the way they are governed by God both in reference to the universe as a whole and to each creature in particular”. He was then told to go up the mountain and (Shemot 24:5-6)

ה וַיֵּרֶד יְהוָה בֶּעָנָן, וַיִּתְיַצֵּב עִמּוֹ שָׁם; וַיִּקְרָא בְשֵׁם, יְהוָה.

5 And the LORD descended in the cloud, and stood with him there, and proclaimed the name of the LORD.

וַיַּעֲבֹר יְהוָה עַל-פָּנָיו, וַיִּקְרָא, יְהוָה יְהוָה, אֵל רַחוּם וְחַנּוּן--אֶרֶךְ אַפַּיִם, וְרַב-חֶסֶד וֶאֱמֶת.

6 And the LORD passed by before him, and proclaimed 'The LORD, the LORD, God, merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth;

Rambam explains that God told Moshe to refrain from focusing on His essence – His face – and concentrate on his deeds which are the attributes that follow in the verse.

“Moses sought to attain to a certain perception which is called "the perception of the Divine face," a term occurring in the phrase "My face cannot be seen"; but God vouchsafed to him a perception of a lower degree, viz., the one called, "the seeing of the back," in the words, "And you shall see My back" (Exod. xxxiii. 23). We have mentioned this subject in our work Mishne Torah. Accordingly, it is stated in the above-mentioned passage that the Lord withheld from Moses that perception which is termed "the seeing of the Divine face," and substituted for it another gift, namely the knowledge of the acts attributed to God, which, as I shall explain (chap.54.) are considered to be different and separate attributes of the Supreme.”

In this context it was not God that passed by but rather God made Moshe pass through, namely turn his mind away from seeking to understand the impossible, His essence (face), and concentrate on His actions (back). When the verse said earlier that God descended in a cloud, God does not descend but rather Moshe, in his concentration felt God’s presence unclearly, as if in a fog, a presence that we know rationally is always there. Realizing that he could never pierce the fog, he refocused on God’s actions trying to learn them to emulate Him.

This idea that God is always present is called Shechinah. A person perceives or “feels” the Shechinah when he concentrates on that idea. I will flesh this out in the next post.

---

[1] בפירושו של אונקלוס לפסוק ותחת רגליו כמעשֹה לבנת הספיר (שמות כ"ד, 10)⁶

הוא ייחס, כידוע לך, את כינוי השייכות שבמלה רגליו אל הכסא ואמר: ותחות כורסי יקריה⁷.

הבן זאת והתפעל מה רחוק היה אונקלוס מן ההגשמה ומכל מה שגורם לה אפילו בדרך הרחוקה ביותר. שהרי לא אמר: ותחות כורסיה⁸

שכן אִילו ייחס את הכיסא אליו על-פי המשמעות המובנת בראשונה היה מתחייב שהוא יהיה יושב⁹

על גוף והיתה מתחייבת הגשמה. לכן ייחס את הכיסא אל יקריה¹⁰,

כלומר, אל השכינה אשר היא אור נברא

…

את פירושו של אונקלוס אתה יודע, אבל תכליתו של דבר שהוא שלל את ההגשמה ולא הבהיר לנו איזה דבר הם¹⁵ השׂיגו, ולא לאיזה דבר הכוונה במשל זה. וכך בכל מקום, הוא איננו מתייחס

לעניין הזה אלא לשלילת ההגשמה בלבד. כי שלילת ההגשמה היא דבר מוכח הוכחה

מופתית, הכרחי לאמונה

¹⁶. לכן הוא קובע באופן חד-משמעי שיש לשלול את ההגשמה ומפרש בהתאם לכך.
הבהרת משמעות המשל, לעומת זאת, היא עניין של סברה. אולי הכוונה לדבר זה או

לדבר אחר. כמו כן דברים אלה נסתרים מאוד, אין הבנתם מיסודות האמונה ואין

השׂגתם קלה להמון. לכן לא נגע בעניין זה

(Michael Schwartz Translation)

Prophetic Visions and Trances.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, the Torah tells us that all prophets besides Moshe experienced their prophecy in either a dream or a vision.

ו וַיֹּאמֶר, שִׁמְעוּ-נָא דְבָרָי; אִם-יִהְיֶה, נְבִיאֲכֶם--יְהוָה בַּמַּרְאָה אֵלָיו אֶתְוַדָּע, בַּחֲלוֹם אֲדַבֶּר-בּוֹ.

6 And He said: Listen pray to My words: if your prophet be the Lord’s in a vision to him would I be known, in a dream would I speak through him. (Bamidbar 12:6)

We also showed that the Sifre and Rambam in its wake both understand this verse to describe the state the prophet is in when he prophesizes, namely either dreaming or having a vision. Dreaming clearly can only occur when a person is asleep but what happens when the prophet has a vision?

I need not explain what a dream is, but I will explain the meaning of the term "vision," which occurs in the passage: "In a vision do I make myself known unto him" (Num. xii. 6). The term signifies that which is also called mare’eh ha-nevuah, "prophetic vision," Yad ha-shem, "the hand of God," and Machazeh, "a sight." It is a fearful and terrifying state which comes to the prophet while awake, as is made clear by Daniel, "And I saw this great vision, and there remained no strength in me, for my comeliness was turned in me into corruption, and I retained no strength" (Dan, x. 8). He afterwards continues, "Thus was I in deep sleep on my face, and my face toward the ground" (ibid. ver. 9). It was in a prophetic vision that the angel spoke to him and "set him upright." Under such circumstances, the senses cease to act, and the overflow in question comes to the rational faculty and through them to the imaginative faculty, which become perfect and performs its function. (MN 2:41)

Rambam further defines this state in his Pirush Hamishna –

The third difference [between Moshe and other prophets] is that when the prophet apprehends “the sight” – Chazon – although it is a vision via an angel, [IOW a vision resulting from rational speculation], his strength leaves him. His whole body trembles and he becomes so fearful as if he is about to die. As Daniel explained when Gavriel spoke to him in a vision “and there remained no strength in me, for my comeliness was turned in me into corruption, and I retained no strength" (Dan, x. 8) and “overcome by a deep sleep I lay prostrate on the ground.” He continues “and because of the vision, I have been seized by pangs”.

Reading these two descriptions, we get the picture that first the prophet speculates about physical and metaphysical matters using his rational faculty - and the overflow in question comes to the rational faculty. As he gets deeper into trying to apprehend metaphysical and transcendental matters that are no longer material, he has to engage his imaginative faculty to translate them into something coherent - and through them to the imaginative faculty. There is now an internal collision between the rational and imaginative, where the rational keeps on reminding the prophet that what he sees in his imaginative faculty is only a metaphor and an allegory. The mental strain that results from this conflict throws the prophet into a state of trance, where he loses touch with his physicality and material self. A person that has not reached the level of perfection of Moshe can only deal with this conflict either while asleep or when in a trance.

Moshe was different. He received the word without any tremor. That is [the meaning of] what HKBH said “and God spoke to Moshe face to face as a friend speaks to another”, namely just as a person does not experience tremors when speaking to a friend so too Moshe did not tremble from the speech although it was face to face. That was because of how strongly he was attached to his rational faculty as we explained.

Moshe having reached perfection was able to deal with the transcendental without having to use the imaginative to make it coherent. His rational faculty could handle these abstract concepts while awake and standing. Rambam summarizes the above as usual in a few words in Hil Yesodei Hatorah 7:12 -

יב

כל הנביאים, יראין ונבהלין ומתמוגגים. ומשה רבנו, אינו כן; הוא שהכתוב אומר "כאשר ידבר איש אל ריעהו" (שמות לג,יא):

כמו שאין אדם נבהל לשמוע דברי חברו, כך היה כוח בדעתו של משה רבנו להבין דברי הנבואה; והוא עומד על עומדו שלם.

There is however, a very intriguing statement in MN 3:9.

Similarly, when it speaks about His manifestation in a thick cloud and in darkness, cloud and thick darkness, it is also only in order that the notion in question is inferred from this manner of speech. For everything that is apprehended in a vision of prophecy is only a parable for some notion. And though that great assembly was greater than any vision of prophecy and beyond any analogy, it also indicated a notion; I refer to His manifestation in a thick cloud. For it draws attention to the fact, that the apprehension of His true reality is impossible for us, because of the dark matter that surrounds us and not Him; for He is not a body.

I have touched on this subject of clouds and this chapter many times and I am sure will return many more times to it. Here I want to focus on just one sentence “And though that great assembly was greater than any vision of prophecy and beyond any analogy”. Rambam is saying that the assembly at Sinai was an experience greater than any vision of prophecy. He then says it is beyond any analogy. Was it a greater vision or was it beyond any analogy to a vision?

Rambam told us that there are two possible prophetic experiences - a dream while sleeping or a vision that results from rational speculation which happens while the prophet is in a trance. We also know that prophecy takes on different forms. It goes from a deep understanding of a metaphysical concept such as Creation from nothingness (MN 2:24) to an apprehension of a concept which takes the form of a communication. It is as if the prophet hears a voice talking to him. Rambam has difficulties with this type prophecy, the idea that a person can hear voices in a semi wakeful trance. He therefore asserts that communication can only occur in a dream.

But it appears to me improbable that a prophet should be able to perceive in a prophetic vision God speaking to him. The action of the imaginative faculty does not go so far, and therefore we do not notice this in the case of the ordinary prophets. Scripture says expressly, "In a vision I will make myself known, in a dream I will speak to him". The speaking is here connected with dream, the influence and the action of the intellect is connected with vision. (MN2:45)

It is not clear exactly why he objects to hearing God speaking during a vision. I suspect that he would question the authenticity of such an experience - “The action of the imaginative faculty does not go so far”. At Sinai, though we are told that the people “heard” God speaking to Moshe. That was the whole point of the experience - to verify that Moshe is the true prophet. The people were not sleeping so they could only have “heard” God speaking in a vision. I understand that is the point Rambam makes when he says that that vision was beyond any analogy. It was a unique vision where the people “heard” God speaking. No other prophet besides Moshe experienced such a vision.

I plan to discuss Rambam’s understanding of the Sinai experience in upcoming posts as I elaborate on the next Ikar, TMS. It is however important to keep in mind what we learned here; that the Sinaitic experience was a “prophetic vision” and that visions are always experienced while in a trance, except for Moshe.

Moshe as Paradigm of Human Perfection.

Before discussing the other three differences between Moshe’s prophecy and that of the other prophets, I want to work through Rambam’s description of Moshe’s personal achievements. (The quote below is from the online edition available at www.Da’at.co.il while I translate from Rav Kafih’s edition which accounts for the slight differences). I will intersperse the translation (italic) with comments. In his introduction to Perek Chelek Rambam writes:

נבואת משה רבנו ע"ה

. והוא שנאמין כי הוא אביהם

של כל הנביאים אשר היו מלפניו ואשר קמו מאחריו, כולם הם תחתיו במעלה. והוא

היה הנבחר מכל מין האדם אשר השיג מידיעתו יתברך יותר מכל מה שהשיג או ישיג

שום אדם שנמצא או שימצא. וכי הוא עליו השלום הגיע התעלותו מן האנושות עד

המעלה המלאכותית, ונכלל במעלת המלאכים, לא נשאר מסך שלא קרעו ונכנס ממנו.

ולא מנעו מונע גופני, ולא נתערב לו שום חסרון בין רב למעט, ונתבטלו ממנו

הכוחות הדמיונות והחושיות והשגותיו, ונבדל כוחו המתעורר המשתוקק, ונשאר

שכל בלבד. ועל העניין הזה נאמר עליו שהיה מדבר עם השם יתברך בלא אמצעיות

מן המלאכים.

The seventh foundation, the prophecy of Moshe Rabbeinu A’H, is that we believe that he is the father of all prophets that preceded him and those that will follow him.

The belief in the uniqueness of Moshe is fundamental to Judaism. A child admires a father and sees him as a model to aspire to and try to emulate. Moshe is the paradigm of what a prophet could be and represents what they all aspire to emulate.

They all are below him in rank, he is God’s preferred member from among the whole of the human species, having apprehended God more that anyone has or will ever apprehend Him. He reached the ultimate level of attainment above all humankind, having apprehended the level of angels and having attained the level of angels.

Moshe is the paradigm of human perfection, a human being that has transcended his physicality and material self to apprehend and conceptualize the transcendental. Underlying this statement of Rambam is the Aristotelian concept of unity between the knower and knowledge. If one apprehends angels, the transcendental concepts, one becomes transcendental, an angel.

No veil remained without him tearing it down and he was not stymied by any physical barrier being without any deficiencies whatsoever, small or large. His imaginative and sensory faculties were non-existent during his state of apprehension, as were his appetites, becoming only Sechel - intellect. That is the meaning of what the Rabbis said of him that he speaks with God without the intermediary of angels.

What is a veil in the context of apprehending the transcendental? Rambam in MN 3:9 devotes a whole chapter to just this theme.

Matter is a strong veil preventing the apprehension of that which is separate from matter as it truly is… However great the exertion of our intellect may be to comprehend the Divine Being or any of the ideals, we find a veil between the two. Thus, the prophets frequently hint at the existence of a veil between God and us. They say He is concealed from us in a heavy cloud, in darkness, in mist, or in a enveloping cloud: or use similar figures to express that on account of our matter we are unable to comprehend His essence.

Bypassing our materialism is the only way to apprehend the non-physical, the immaterial. Rambam in his introduction to Avot, Shemona Perakim, presents the human mind as an integrated unit that both controls and directs bodily function and also is the seat of the intellect. Intellectual perfection comes when all these integrated components of the human mind are perfectly tuned so that each performs its role in a rational and balanced manner. It is only then that the intellectual can apprehend true realities that are not material. Moshe is the paradigm of such a human being. …he was not stymied by any physical barrier being without any deficiencies whatsoever, small or large. Deficiencies are related to matter. Matter is transient, good being its coming into existence and bad its demise. Concern with material existence only, means to emphasize the finite. That prevents one from even comprehending that that there is more to existence than matter, that there is a transcendental First Cause. The veil that hides the transcendental is commensurate with how important the material is to us. Moshe overcame that concern, forty days and forty nights he ate no bread and drank no water, tore all possible human veils that stood between him and apprehension of the immaterial, and still could only apprehend “My back but My face will not be seen”. That was more than any other human could.

Prophecy is not a superhuman trait but something that every person can attain. It is synonymous with human perfection. Human perfection means apprehending God to the best of our abilities. Apprehending God means searching beyond the physical and material existence trying to understand how, why and for what purpose we exist and what is our role in the whole of existence as a species and as individuals and acting accordingly. Moshe is the model that we all try to emulate knowing that we will never attain his level of perfection. The prophets among us, those that succeeded in perfecting themselves to the utmost both past, present and future, know that they are not at Moshe’s level.

This understanding of Moshe’s attributes and uniqueness is important in understanding why we believe the Torah is of divine origin.

The question which now remains to be settled is this: Is the person who proclaimed these laws the same perfect man that received them by prophetic inspiration, or a plagiarist, who has stolen these ideas from a true prophet? In order to be enabled to answer this question, we must examine the perfection of the individual, obtain an accurate account of his actions, and consider his character. The best test is the rejection, abstention, and contempt of bodily pleasures for this the first of the degrees of the people of science and all the more of the prophets. (MN2:40)

The Dangers of a Revelatory Experience - The Egel Hazahav - The Golden Calf-

I just relearned a beautiful Meshech Chochma by R. Meir Simcha of Dvinsk on this week’s Parsha which shows us how to interpret what seems to be an innocuous saying of the Rabbis. In its superficial reading it sounds like a myth. Properly understood it teaches an incredibly deep philosophical idea.

I want to caution that R. Meir Simcha himself, when he addresses these deep philosophical ideas writes in a quite obfuscating way. It requires interpretation and what follows is my understanding of what he wrote. There is no guarantee that it is the only reading.

תלמוד בבלי מסכת שבת דף קד עמוד א

ואמר רב חסדא: כתב שבלוחות נקרא מבפנים ונקרא מבחוץ, כגון נבוב - בובן, רהב – בהר סרו - ורס.

Rav Hisda said the writing of the Luchot could be read from the inside and from the outside e.g. נבוב - בובן, רהב – בהר סרו – ורס

The first thing that catches one’s attention is that the words that R. Hisda uses as examples do not appear in the Luchot. Rashi notes that and comments that the choice of words is unintentional and meant to convey only examples of how a reading from two sides would appear. But even more baffling is what is R. Hisda telling us? What significance does this curiosity have?

R. Meir Simcha explains that there are two approaches to finding and understanding God. The regular approach which was followed by Avraham is to contemplate the universe and in analyzing cause and effect arrive at the conclusion that there is a First Cause that causes everything without Himself being caused. The laws of morality and ethics can also be learned from nature, what is commonly referred to as natural law and morality. It is a searching process from the bottom up. We look at our existence and surroundings to find God and establish laws.

The other approach is the revelatory experience similar to the one the Jewish people experienced at Sinai. They experienced God through revelation and received laws from God. The difference between the two is that when it occurs through revelation it becomes clear that God has Will, having willed existence just like He willed this revelatory experience. Apprehending God as having Will and choice makes one imagine tools that He uses to create and maintain what He created. Those are the ideas behind creation, the laws of nature set in place by God, the separate intellects or what we refer to as angels. They all are separate entities put in place by God to make things happen.

On the other hand finding the First Cause from the bottom up does not necessarily prove that God has choice. He can be seen as Aristotle saw Him, a spiritual power behind physicality. The spiritual and physical are interdependent and both are there eternally without any choice. Spinoza developed a completely atheistic philosophy on that basis. It is through revelation that we conclude that God, the First Cause, created in time and chose to will everything. Revelation is an adjunct and not the sole basis for an understanding of existence and God. When one arrives at God through this combination of intellectual development and revelation, it is illogical to confuse the First Cause with the laws of nature which are its effects.

It is therefore the miraculous revelatory experience, without a rigorous understanding of First Cause as a logical necessity, which allows for a misunderstanding of where everything begins.

R. Hisda refers to these two approaches to God using the metaphor of reading from the inside and from the outside or from the bottom up and the top down. Some, like Moshe and those close to him, experienced revelation as an addition to their bottom up understanding. Others, the Jewish people, the masses having just been liberated from Egyptian slavery, having been immersed in an idolatrous society that knew many gods and who saw the forces of nature as gods were not ready to grasp a transcendental unique God. Having experienced God through revelation only, without the proper philosophical grounding, they could not distinguish between the separate intellects, the angels that they perceived as the forces that guide existence and their Creator. They confused the Creator with His creations and that was the cause of their mistake in demanding an idol to replace Moshe. God cannot be represented because He is outside nature; He is a singularity, the only Entity that is not caused. It is when one confuses God with nature, when He is no longer seen as transcendental, that there is a need to represent that idea with a symbol. The golden calf was a representation of this mistaken concept. It was thus the experience of apprehending the existence of angels, separate intellects in medieval philosophic parlance, through revelation and the accompanying misconceptions that was at the root of the Egel.

Where do we find in the Torah an allusion to the revelation of separate intellects? Where does it mention anything about the people “seeing” angels which led to their misconception? R. Hisda tells us that if we read carefully the verse in Shemot 27:8 describing the construction of the Altar, we will find a clear allusion to that experience.

ח נְבוּב לֻחֹת, תַּעֲשֶׂה אֹתוֹ: כַּאֲשֶׁר הֶרְאָה אֹתְךָ בָּהָר, כֵּן יַעֲשׂוּ. {ס}
8 Hollow with planks shall thou make it; as he has shown you in the mount, so shall they make it. {S}

What is intriguing is that whereas in Shemot 26:30[1] and 25:40[2], in the discussion of the Mishkan and the menorah respectively, the reference is unspecific, here it is very specific; “as he has shown you in the mount”. “He” being their perception of a specific entity that showed them the altar. Just as angels represent the concept of laws of nature so do they represent the concept behind the construction of the altar. Clearly the Torah is alluding that the people “saw” angels at Sinai. There was a revelatory experience that let them “see” the significance of the construction of the Mizbeach just as they “saw” the general concepts underlying God’s world

Note how two out of the three words R. Hisda used as examples for his metaphor appear in this verse – נְבוּב and בָּהָר. The third word סָרוּ appears in Shemot 32:8

ח סָרוּ מַהֵר, מִן-הַדֶּרֶךְ אֲשֶׁר צִוִּיתִם--עָשׂוּ לָהֶם, עֵגֶל מַסֵּכָה; וַיִּשְׁתַּחֲווּ-לוֹ, וַיִּזְבְּחוּ-לוֹ, וַיֹּאמְרוּ, אֵלֶּה אֱלֹהֶיךָ יִשְׂרָאֵל אֲשֶׁר הֶעֱלוּךָ מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם.
8 they have turned aside quickly out of the way which I commanded them; they have made them a molten calf, and have worshipped it, and have sacrificed unto it, and said: This is thy god, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.'

In other words R. Hisda was telling us that the cause for the people’s mistake in making the Egel was their apprehending through revelation, philosophical and metaphysical concepts of God and the laws of nature that make up our existence, without proper grounding in philosophy. The mistake came about because they could not differentiate God the Creator from His creations which they so vividly “saw”.

I believe this to be an exemplary interpretation of what is referred to as Aggadah and shows how much thought went into a superficially simplistic statement. The literal minded reader will not be harmed and understand it as he is wont to; literally. He will be filled with wonderment about the miraculous tablets that were found with words carved into them from side to side. Presenting that reader with the concept of separate intellects, laws of nature, God’s will and methods of contemplation would have no meaning to him. R. Meir Simcha or other scholars of his caliber, on the other hand, would be able to decipher the message and share it with those who can see the truth behind it.

In the posts below I showed how Rambam interprets other verses and comments of Chazal in a similar vein.

http://yediah.blogspot.com/2006/02/revelation-at-sinai-white-sapphire.html
http://yediah.blogspot.com/2006/02/more-on-revelation-jewish-nobles.html

Clearly R. Meir Simcha had Rambam in front of his eyes when he wrote this piece.


[1]
ל וַהֲקֵמֹתָ, אֶת-הַמִּשְׁכָּן: כְּמִשְׁפָּטוֹ--אֲשֶׁר הָרְאֵיתָ, בָּהָר. {ס}
30 And thou shall rear up the tabernacle according to the fashion thereof which hath been shown thee in the mount. {S}

[2]
מ וּרְאֵה, וַעֲשֵׂה: בְּתַבְנִיתָם--אֲשֶׁר-אַתָּה מָרְאֶה, בָּהָר. {ס}
40 And see that thou make them after their pattern, which is being shown thee in the mount. {S}