Avraham's Prophetic Vision - Sdom's Destruction.

(I recommend that Breishit Chapters 18 and 19 be read before reading this post.)

The story of Avraham and the angels has generated a lot of controversy among the Rishonim. The discussion centers round Rambam’s famous statement that this is a report of a prophetic vision rather than a real life occurrence. Rambam in MN 2:42 as usual, is a little cryptic and I will try to flesh him out. After explaining that whenever the presence of an angel is mentioned in the text in any part of the story, it must be a prophetic vision, Rambam brings the following example:

“This important principle was adopted by one of our Sages, one of the greatest among them, R. Hiya the Great (Bereshit Raba, xlviii.), in the exposition of the Scriptural passage commencing, "And the Lord appeared unto him in the plain of Mamre" (Gen. Xviii.). The general statement that the Lord appeared to Avraham is followed by the description in what manner that appearance of the Lord took place. Avraham at first saw three men and ran whereupon they spoke and were spoken to. R. Hiya, the author of this allegorical explanation, says of Avraham’s words, "My Lord, if now I have found grace in thy sight, do not, I pray thee, pass from thy servant," were spoken by him in a prophetic vision to one of the men; he says in fact that Avraham addressed these words to the greatest of these men. Note this well, for it is one of the great mysteries [of the Law].”

Rambam reads the scriptural text as follows –

א וַיֵּרָא אֵלָיו יְהוָה, בְּאֵלֹנֵי מַמְרֵא; וְהוּא יֹשֵׁב פֶּתַח-הָאֹהֶל, כְּחֹם הַיּוֹם.

1 And the LORD appeared unto him by the plains of Mamre, as he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day.

This verse is an introduction stating that Avraham, sitting in the heat of the day got lost in thought and experienced a prophetic vision. It must be a vision, as God is not physical and can only be “seen” in the mind’s eyes. The rest of the story is a description of that vision. Thus, when Avraham speaks, his mind sees him as speaking and when the “angels” speak, it is Avraham’s mind that hears them speak. In other words, Avraham was contemplating how HKBH runs the world and during that cogitation, he became aware of the imminent destruction of Sdom. Rambam brings an interesting proof to his position.

ג וַיֹּאמַר: אֲדֹנָי, אִם-נָא מָצָאתִי חֵן בְּעֵינֶיךָ--אַל-נָא תַעֲבֹר, מֵעַל עַבְדֶּךָ.

3 and said: 'My lord, if now I have found favor in your sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant.

This verse is the subject of a Halachik discussion in Massechet Shevuot 35b that revolves around who we understand is: אֲדֹנָי - “my lord”. One way of understanding is that as Avraham was contemplating some aspect of HKBH, he moved away to thinking about more mundane matters, such as his childlessness. He therefore, in his vision, begged God forgiveness for being distracted and promised to return soon to the subject at hand. According to this interpretation, אֲדֹנָי is the name of God and therefore has certain Halachik requisites when written in a Sefer Torah. The other way of interpreting it is that Avraham was talking to the “angels” in his vision begging them not to bypass him. According to this understanding, the word אֲדֹנָיis translated “my lord” and has no special requirements when written. This interpretation however is problematic. The word אֲדֹנָיis singular as is the rest of the sentence while there were three “angels”. Rav Hiya addresses it and explains that Avraham spoke to the greatest among them. The way Rambam quotes Rav Hiya, where is the proof that the men were angels and therefore Avraham was having a prophetic vision? Furthermore, what caused Rambam’s excitement and why did he see in this apparently innocuous statement one of the “great mysteries of the Law”?

Rav Hiya’s comment is preserved in Midrash Raba Breishit 48:3 (Theodor- Albeck Edition page 486) –

ויאמר אדני אם נא מצאתי חן תני ר' חייא:
לגדול שבהן אמר: זה מיכאל.

The Midrash adds two crucial words זה מיכאל – namely the angel Michael - which Rambam omitted. These kinds of omissions are quite common in Rambam who expects us to check his sources and fill in the blanks. Although there could be a deeper reason, I believe this to be a didactic method where Rambam sees his role as a teacher who prods his students to think. What is however the meaning of “greatest” among them? How did Avraham know who was the “greatest? The Gemara in Yoma 37a says that the middle person is the leader by convention. But I believe there is much more to this.

In MN2:6 Rambam explains that angels are a general description of the various forces and concepts that regulate our existence. Among other things –

“Rather do all these texts state plainly that all this – including the various parts of that which exists and even the creation of the limbs of animals as they are – has been brought about by the intermediation of the angels. …that God has placed in the sperm a formative power which produces and shapes the limbs, and that this power is called "angel," or that all forms derive from the act of the Active Intellect, and that the latter is the angel, the Prince of the World, frequently mentioned by our Sages…”

In other words, the laws and forces of nature that are responsible for the existence of the physical world are at times, referred to as “angel”. This particular “angel” responsible for physical existence and its continuity, is referred to by the rabbis as The “Prince of the World”. Interestingly Rav Kafih refers us in his notes to Pirkei D’Rabbi Eliezer chapter 27 where the “Prince of the World” is identified with the angel Michael.

Putting all these pieces together, we get the following picture. Avraham was sitting in contemplation thinking about God and trying to apprehend Him through His creations – our world. As he was considering the forces of nature that cause things to exist and observing natural phenomena, he came to realize that an impending cataclysmic disaster was about to happen nearby, in Sdom. He arrived at that conclusion in a flash of revelation which came in the form of a vision where the forces took on the form of the three “angels”. Interpreting the vision, Avraham understood that the middle one represented the “greatest” of the three, namely “Michael the Prince of the World” who represents the natural laws and forces responsible for nature. The vision had a little side theme where Avraham’s conviction that he was about to have a son with Sarah, was reinforced. As Abravanel explains Rambam, the rest of the story including the part of Lot’s escape and his wife turning into a heap of salt, are all part of the vision. Avraham realized the magnitude of the upcoming event and struggled with how to understand God’s justice in light of such general disasters that sweep up the evil and the righteous. The vision that Lot unlike the rest of the town, though reluctantly, will finally realize that escape was the only solution, is I understand an answer to that question. If one is sufficiently attuned to one’s surroundings and can overcome their greed, laziness and paralysis that cloud man’s objectivity, many times he can predict and foresee these natural disasters. If ten people in town are righteous, in other words, able to foresee and accept the impending disaster, they might convince the whole town to escape. Unfortunately, in his vision, Avraham saw that only Lot would have the necessary prescience. The vision comes to an end and the disaster unfolds.

כז וַיַּשְׁכֵּם אַבְרָהָם, בַּבֹּקֶר: אֶל-הַמָּקוֹם--אֲשֶׁר-עָמַד שָׁם, אֶת-פְּנֵי יְהוָה.

27 And Avraham got up early in the morning to the place where he had stood before the LORD.

כח וַיַּשְׁקֵף, עַל-פְּנֵי סְדֹם וַעֲמֹרָה, וְעַל-כָּל-פְּנֵי, אֶרֶץ הַכִּכָּר; וַיַּרְא, וְהִנֵּה עָלָה קִיטֹר הָאָרֶץ, כְּקִיטֹר, הַכִּבְשָׁן.

28 And he looked out toward Sodom and Gomorrah, and toward all the land of the Plain, and beheld, and, lo, the smoke of the land went up as the smoke of a furnace.

Reading the story in this manner there is no question that all this was a vision. Furthermore, it teaches deep and important lessons about the meaning of Divine Providence, man’s role in it, God’s justice, righteousness and man’s freedom to act responsibly or irresponsibly. The text becomes a treatise on philosophical issues of great importance and relevance to our religious thought and practice.

Avraham's Great Virtue - Self Doubt.

There is only one rational method for finding and understanding God and that is through contemplating His creations. It is a deductive process through which we hope to get to know HKBH’s will by observing the results of that will in our existence and act in accordance with that understanding. That is the meaning of going in God’s ways, the positive commandment of Vehalachta Biderachav; the eighth Mitzvat Asseh listed in Sefer Hamitzvot. It is a thinking that has to be at the center of every decision we make whether on matters that have immediate and short-term effects or medium and long-term even multigenerational consequences. As every act of ours has consequences, knowing the goal and what we want to accomplish is the key to how we act. The problem is that we are always left wondering whether we have truly understood correctly God’s will and even if yes, are our actions the ones that will take us to the goal we set for ourselves. It is with that in mind that we can understand the importance of Midot, working on our character and behavior urges and wants, making sure that our own personal bias for self-gratification do not blindside us. A hedonistic narcissist can never be expected to make a correct decision no matter how intelligent, learned and smart he may be. That is the Torah’s goal, to give us the tools to make us into that perfected human being. But in reality, no matter how perfect a person may be, there is never full and unquestionable certainty. There is always a lingering doubt in the mind of that perfected human being whether he is doing the right thing.

Avraham Avinu started by contemplating the universe and his existence in it and came to the conclusion that there is a God who willed creation and if we want to understand our goal here on earth, we must learn to emulate Him.

כיון שנגמל איתן זה, התחיל לשוטט בדעתו והוא קטן, ולחשוב ביום ובלילה,
והיה תמיה: היאך אפשר שיהיה הגלגל הזה נוהג תמיד, ולא יהיה לו מנהיג; ומי
יסבב אותו, לפי שאי אפשר שיסבב את עצמו.
(Hilchot Avodah Zara 1:9)

Avraham concluded from his contemplation that he is obligated to spread this teaching to all of humanity. Only by understanding this, will humanity be able to fulfill its purpose and role as an integral and important part of the universe and God’s great creation. This vision is the meaning of

ב וְאֶעֶשְׂךָ, לְגוֹי גָּדוֹל, וַאֲבָרֶכְךָ, וַאֲגַדְּלָה שְׁמֶךָ; וֶהְיֵה, בְּרָכָה.

2 And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you, and make your name great; and be thou a blessing.

ג וַאֲבָרְכָה, מְבָרְכֶיךָ, וּמְקַלֶּלְךָ, אָאֹר; וְנִבְרְכוּ בְךָ, כֹּל מִשְׁפְּחֹת הָאֲדָמָה.

3 And I will bless them that bless you, and curse them that curse you; and in you shall all the families of the earth be blessed.'

Rambam in MN 3:29 explains:

“God said to him, "And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse them that curse thee" (Gen. 12:3). The result of the course which Abraham took, is the fact that most people, as we see at present, agree in praising him, and being proud of him; so that even those who are not his descendants call themselves by his name.”

Avraham met great resistance and started to doubt whether he could succeed. That is where the vision, a result of the great internal strength that Avraham had, his ability to overcome his doubts and act according to his principles and what he thought to be correct, that played a role in his continuing on this path. Building on the take of Rav Gedalia Nadel in my earlier post that the Dor Haflagah and Nimrod depict a movement towards monarchy, subjugation of the masses and empire building, Avraham, a contemporary, was reacting against this. That explains the sequence of the stories and the reason for their being reported as a way of putting the life and work of Avraham in context. That is how I understand the Rabbis’ meaning when they tell the story of his being arrested and released and in consequence fleeing with his family.

Avraham’s doubt did not stop here. As he continued on this path, he continually stopped and wondered whether he was doing the right thing. The story of the Brit Bein Habetarim depicts that self-doubt in very stark terms. He doubts whether his path will lead to success. He has no descendants and fears that once he dies all his hard work will go to waste. The vision that he has reinforces his conviction that he is doing the right thing but it also depicts realistically how hard this will be. The darkness that envelops him in his dream, the birds and carrion that populate it are a very poignant depiction of his state of mind. He however sees the hope and is convinced that his endeavor will eventually succeed.

This process of always doubting and convincing oneself of the correctness of one’s action, in other words stopping to take inventory every step of the way, is exactly the correct way to proceed.

ו וְהֶאֱמִן, בַּיהוָה; וַיַּחְשְׁבֶהָ לּוֹ, צְדָקָה.

6 And he believed in the LORD; and He counted it to him for righteousness.

This verse has baffled many a commentator – see Rashi, Ramban. Rambam addresses it in MN 3:53 as follows:

“When you walk in the way of the moral virtues you do justice unto your rational faculty, giving her due that is her right. And because every moral virtue is called Tzedakah, it says "And he believed in the Lord, and he accounted it to him as Tzedakah" (Gen. 15:6) I mean the virtue of faith.”

After explaining that in Tanach the word Tzedakah refers to situations where we have a moral obligation to give someone his due, such as alms to a poor man, Rambam uses this analogy to our verse. Faith is not a blind emotional belief as it is commonly thought to be. Emunah is a rational process where we have to convince ourselves through intellectual and rational thought that our understanding of the universe as being the result of God’s will is correct. We also have to convince ourselves that our actions that result from this contemplation are correct and not prompted by our personal biases. That is only possible if we perfect our moral virtues. Our rational faculty is what makes us into human beings and its ultimate perfection is acquiring this great knowledge of what we are here for, what our role is in this and how to act accordingly. All intellectual growth accompanied by moral perfection are geared towards that goal and are therefore the dues we are giving to our own rational faculty. Doubt and self awareness, constantly questioning ourselves and wondering whether we are on the right path is an integral part of that process. The Torah sanctions it nay praises it. Humanity has known many visionaries from dangerous crackpots to brilliant people who were convinced they found the right path, the ways of God and knew His wishes. Only those that were truly virtuous and full of self-doubt have brought good to the world. The others eventually self-destructed taking along many to their destruction.


I believe that if we approach the text with this perspective much of the difficult questions about its historicity, its context and its relevance, are answered. It is how the rabbis looked at it in the Midrashim, if we read them carefully, and how Rambam and many other great thinkers approached it.

From Creation To Noach - A Perspective.

Many are bothered by the science and historicity of the events described in the Parshyot that we read at this time of year. The descriptions of the creation of the world and man, the Dor Haflagah (Tower of Babel) and the Flood have been discussed by believers and non-believers for generations and at times used by some as a reason for denying religion as Truth. How can a divine torah be wrong, or at best inexact, about history?

Rambam in MN 3:50 makes a sweeping comment which addresses the issue.

“Know that all the stories that you will find mentioned in the Torah occur there for a necessary utility for the Law. Either they give a correct notion of an opinion that is a pillar of the Law or they rectify some action so that mutual wrongdoing and aggression should not occur between men.”

In other words, one has to look at the reported stories more as commentaries on occurrences rather than a description of an historical event. It does not mean that the story is untrue but rather that the details that are reported are only those that are needed to make a theological, ethical or moral point supporting a teaching. After all the word Torah, comes from Hora’ah which means teaching. The Torah teaches ethics, morals and theology not science or history. We cannot look to the Torah to tell us how the world was created and operates, the laws of physics, chemistry and biology, but we look to it to tell us that it was willed into existence by a unique entity that we refer to as God. The question whether the Big Bang (if this theory is eventually proven without doubt) occurred as a result of a singularity or if it was willed by an entity that we call God, cannot be answered empirically. It will always remain in the realm of theology which is what Torah addresses. Judaism is based on a belief in a universe that was willed into existence by HKBH as the basis for its ethics, morality and theodicy. It is why we believe that there are consequences to our actions and we therefore have to do our part in how the world is run as an active participant in this great universe conceived and willed into existence by HKBH.

The same logic applies to the stories that describe human evolution. Starting with Adam Harishon, the first human in the line of contemporary man, it describes the different branches, Cain, Hevel and the branch that eventually became ours, Seth. It describes very cryptically how man slowly became aware of how his actions have consequences in the lead up to the great cataclysm of antiquity, the flood. It describes briefly how humanity changed after the cataclysm, how the basic laws of ethics and morality, the Seven Noachide Laws, were developed, how nations and different cultures flourished in the area of the Fertile Crescent. That awareness of consequences to our actions brings us to Avraham, who developed a coherent theology that offers an explanation and a raison d’etre to our existence.

Looking at these Parshyot from this perspective, I understand the whole of Sefer Breishit as the narrative that puts our religion and theology in context. There is no reason to doubt the veracity of the narratives but at the same time we cannot expect to learn from the text exactly how, when, where and what happened. We know that at some time in antiquity there was a cataclysmic flood that left an indelible mark in human memory. There is no way of knowing from the Torah narrative where it occurred or how widespread it was. All we know is that it was a cataclysm of such proportions that it changed the course of human history at least in the Fertile Crescent. The Torah uses it to teach us that we have to be aware of our environment and sensitive to the messages it sends us just as Noach was. Like Noach, we have to act on that information to protect ourselves.

The inordinate long life of early man as told in the Torah is another area that has baffled generations. I do not purport to have a good explanation of it but I would rather seek to understand the underlying message the Torah is sending us. Rambam is bothered by this problem and suggests that these long-lived individuals were the only ones in their generation to live so long. Ralbag however has an interesting take on it. He says that at the early stages of human civilization, man being a tabula rasa as far as sciences and general knowledge were concerned, needed a long life to allow for continuity so that difficult concepts could be developed and understood within a lifespan. The lack of continuity in a short life leaving half-developed ideas to be developed by the next generation would not permit the speedy advancement needed to create sophisticated societies. Thinking along similar lines, I would like to suggest that the Torah describes different schools of thought. Each long-lived individual represents one school of thought that led to the next which eventually brought humanity Avraham who changed its way of thinking as the first proselytizer of monotheism. Each school of thought required a long time, several normal life spans, to mature enough to allow for the next more advanced one to take over. It also suggests that at some point there was an overlap where after a few years the next school started to germinate its own ideas taking hold as the earlier one matured. That is how I understand why the Torah tells us at what age of the father the next son was born namely the next step in the evolution of ideas. It also tells us that there were other branches that developed in parallel but apparently did not leave a mark; just the one that survived and became dominant for a while is identified. That is how I understand the repetitively similar verses to this one –

ג וַיְחִי אָדָם, שְׁלֹשִׁים וּמְאַת שָׁנָה, וַיּוֹלֶד בִּדְמוּתוֹ, כְּצַלְמוֹ; וַיִּקְרָא אֶת-שְׁמוֹ, שֵׁת. 3

And Adam lived a hundred and thirty years, and begot a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth.

ד וַיִּהְיוּ יְמֵי-אָדָם, אַחֲרֵי הוֹלִידוֹ אֶת-שֵׁת, שְׁמֹנֶה מֵאֹת, שָׁנָה; וַיּוֹלֶד בָּנִים, וּבָנוֹת.

4 And the days of Adam after he begot Seth were eight hundred years; and he begot sons and daughters.

ה וַיִּהְיוּ כָּל-יְמֵי אָדָם, אֲשֶׁר-חַי, תְּשַׁע מֵאוֹת שָׁנָה, וּשְׁלֹשִׁים שָׁנָה; וַיָּמֹת. {ס}

5 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years; and he died. {S}

(Breishit 5:3-5)

Adam’s philosophy was accepted by his son Seth, he begat “a son in his own likeness” (see MN 1:7), but other schools of thought began to develop in the later years of his life, after 800 years he “begot sons and daughters”. I would suggest that the other verses that follow be understood in a similar vein.

I say this because the Torah leaves several signposts that indicate a start of a major new school of thought.

כו וּלְשֵׁת גַּם-הוּא יֻלַּד-בֵּן, וַיִּקְרָא אֶת-שְׁמוֹ אֱנוֹשׁ; אָז הוּחַל, לִקְרֹא בְּשֵׁם יְהוָה. {ס}

26 And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enosh; it was then that the name of God was invoked. {S} (Breishit 4:26)

The Rabbis read the last few words negatively. The word הוּחַל is translated by them as profane, God’s name was profaned at that time and the philosophies that support idolatry were developed. A few generations later, we encounter a new theological step.

כב וַיִּתְהַלֵּךְ חֲנוֹךְ אֶת-הָאֱלֹהִים, אַחֲרֵי הוֹלִידוֹ אֶת-מְתוּשֶׁלַח, שְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת, שָׁנָה; וַיּוֹלֶד בָּנִים, וּבָנוֹת.

22 And Chanoch walked with God after he begot Methushelach three hundred years, and begot sons and daughters.

Chanoch discovered God and understood the need to walk with Him, try to understand His world and act in concert with it. The Rabbis considered Methushelach to be a righteous man who apparently absorbed and further developed Chanoch’s ideas leading up to Noach who acted on this understanding. The Rabbis tell us that Noach was a man of action who took the ideas of Chanoch and Methushelach and expressed them practically by developing agricultural implements and methods. He also was attuned to his environment to the point that he could presage the great cataclysm of the flood, acting to protect himself from it.

Looking at these narratives from this perspective puts them in their proper context as the description, though cryptic, of the development of human thought and ideas that led to Avraham and eventually the emergence of the Jewish people and its beliefs, the subject of the rest of the Torah.

The Relationship Between Midrashic Exegesis and the Written Text.

The Rabbis in Midrash Rabah Vaykra (Margulies Edition pages 706 - 30:8-15) present a multitude of explanations for the Mitzvah of taking the four Minim on Sukkot, giving many reasons for the grouping as well as for each individual component. Rambam takes the opportunity to make a statement about these types of exegesis.

“As regards the four species [the branches of the palm tree, the citron, the myrtle, and the willows of the brook], our Sages gave a reason for their use by way of Midrashim, the method of which is well known to those who understand their discourse. They use the text of the Bible only as a kind of poetical language [for their own ideas], and do not intend thereby to give an interpretation of the text. Accordingly, with regard to the Midrashim, people are divided into two classes. For some think that, the Midrash contains the real explanation of the text, whilst others, finding that it cannot be reconciled with the words quoted, reject and ridicule it. The former struggle and fight to prove and to confirm such interpretations according to their opinion, and to keep them as the real meaning of the text; they consider them in the same light as traditional laws.”

In his discussions about Torah She Ba’al Peh, the oral tradition that we received at Sinai as interpretation of how to perform the Mitzvot, Rambam uses the “Four Species” frequently as an example. In the introduction to the Mishna, he uses Etrog as an example of a received tradition as well as how the Rabbis looked to find clues in the text to confirm that tradition. When the Torah tells us to take a “fruit of a stately tree”, it should not contradict the received tradition and it should be possible to include the Etrog under that rubric. The Gemara goes even further and tries to find logical reasons why Etrog is the most probable choice of all possible fruit that would have the conditions laid out in the text. That is not the type of Derashot Rambam refers to here but rather those that compare the Four Species, to God, the patriarchs, the Sanhedrin, the different types of personalities that compose the Jewish community etc… These exegeses deal with the “why” rather than the “how”. Some literalists will try to read these Midrashim literally into the text at times using embarrassingly forced interpretations while others will ridicule and argue that the Rabbis distort the text to fit their own biases, a common argument found among modern Biblical scholars.

“Neither of the two classes understood it, that our Sages employ biblical texts merely as poetical expressions, the meaning of which is not obscure for someone endowed with understanding. This method was general in ancient days; all adopted it in the same way as poets use poetical expressions.”

In other words, these Midrashim stand alone as speculation by the rabbis on the reasons for the Mitzvah and the text is used as a tool to present the idea tying it to that particular Mitzvah, possibly as a mnemonic device. Rambam then analyzes another case where the Rabbis use a verse to teach a moral lesson. It is quite clear that not only does the idea have no relationship with the text; the idea itself is presented in a non-literal format. Rambam wants to disabuse us of the idea that this is unique to these specific cases by making a more sweeping statement -

“In the same sense you must understand the phrase, "Do not read so, but so," wherever it occurs in the Midrash.”

Chag Sameach.

Reading a Theological or an Historical Text -

Although there is some overlap between the categories and there also is some controversy among the interpreters to which category certain texts belong, the Torah, the Five Books of Moshe, contain legal, theological and historical texts. While legal texts are almost exclusively found in the Torah, the other two categories are common to all the prophetic books including Nach, the Books of the Prophets. The legal portions are addressed in the Halachik discourse and comprise what is generally known as Talmud Torah, the learning done in Yeshivot and on a daily basis by most observant Jews. Although generally ignored, there is a very important theological and philosophical foundation to the Halachik discourse which therefore affects legal decisions and how Mitzvot are practiced. Practice however can be defined while theology and philosophy are much more fluid and therefore much more controversial. Furthermore, philosophy and theology should be seen as developmental processes that span millennia and generations. As I explained in earlier posts, the scriptures posit beliefs that we are then tasked to convince ourselves of their veracity and correctness. It is this process of learning and searching that moves us along as individuals, a people and through us the whole world towards the goal of attaining the ultimate Truth,

כִּי-מָלְאָה הָאָרֶץ, דֵּעָה אֶת-יְהוָה, כַּמַּיִם, לַיָּם מְכַסִּים.

For the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea. (Yeshayahu 11:9)

It is with this in mind that we have to approach the theological texts as we try to understand them and interpret them.

The way I understand it, Torah theology is a way of looking and interpreting our observations of our surroundings and existence. In other words, we observe and try to understand the science underlying the physical world we live in, a developmental process in itself that also spans millennia and generations, and at the same time try to make sense of our raison d’etre, why we are here and what is the purpose of this whole enterprise. For ease, I will refer to all science as physics while metaphysics is included in theology. Looking at physics, although we are still far from having a complete understanding of it and may never understand it all the way, at least theoretically we should eventually be able to acquire full knowledge thereof. That is so, because physics is an objective and empirical science. Theology with its underlying belief system and metaphysical theories, on the other hand, is subjective and cannot be proven empirically. It is a way of looking at things based on a combination of deductive thinking, intuition and prophecy, revelation. However, these two different types of knowledge go together and are interdependent. As humanity develops its knowledge of physics, it also develops its understanding of theology which is de facto a commentary and interpretation of the first.

The Torah sets down an axiom – God exists. Rambam holds that it is empirically provable but requires a lot of work and effort. He therefore considers it a Mitzvah – a commandment – to “know” that God exists.

…יסוד היסודות ועמוד החכמות, לידע שיש שם מצוי ראשון
וידיעת דבר זה מצות עשה, שנאמר "אנוכי ה' אלוהיך

The way I understand Rambam is that this axiom is at the intersection of physics and theology. That God “exists” is empirically provable however, what God “is” and even how the word “exists” relates to Him is a matter that belongs to the realm of theology. Everything about God, omniscience, omnipotence, will, whether He created the world from nothingness, His providence and His relationship to our own existence, all belongs to theology and is subjective, a way we look at things rather than something empirically provable. It is theology that the Torah presents in its non-legal texts and is the subject of Nach. It tells us how we should look at things and it lays out markers that we should follow as we try to understand and make sense of it all but it ultimately leaves it to us to fill in the blanks. It is through the combination of this process of thinking, keeping the Mitzvot and understanding them, which in itself depends on our theological insights, that we will eventually fulfill the first Mitzvah of “knowing” that God exists.

It is with this in mind that the Torah starts off by describing creation. It certainly does not intend to tell us a scientific truth as that is left to us to discover – it therefore should not be read literally, even if the literal reading were to agree with current science which it does not. It is teaching us that as we observe our world and develop an understanding of how it works, we have to keep in mind that it was willed into existence by HKBH from nothingness. Whatever scientific theory for the world’s beginning is in vogue, whether it is the Big Bang or any other such theory that may arise, the prior cause for that singularity is God and His will and not some other subjective explanation. The Torah presentation of creation also tells us that all components of the universe are interrelated and interdependent and all, including humans have a role to play in its continuity. It also tells us that God has put into place in this universe a self-sustaining system that does not require any further intervention on His part – He “rested” on the seventh day. It also tells us about man and his mental and psychological makeup, abilities and responsibilities. What it does not tell us is the scientific and physical makeup of the world.

“First, the account given in Scripture of the Creation is not, as is generally believed, intended to be in all its parts literal. For if this were the case, wise men would not have kept its explanation secret, and our Sages would not have employed figurative speech [in treating of the Creation] in order to hide its true meaning, nor would they have objected to discuss it in the presence of the common people. The literal meaning of the words might lead us to conceive corrupt ideas and to form false opinions about God, or even entirely to abandon and reject the principles of our Faith. It is therefore right to abstain and refrain from examining this subject superficially and unscientifically. We must blame the practice of some ignorant preachers and expounders of the Bible, who think that wisdom consists in knowing the explanation of words, and that greater perfection is attained by employing more words and longer speech.” (MN 2:29)

This is the approach that we have to take to every text that deals with theology. Its purpose is to tell us how we should look at our physical reality, the world we live in, at things that happen to us as a nation, as individuals and as humanity. It tells us how we should interpret the good and bad things that happen to us and how we should act when we are presented with choices, basing ourselves on certain ethical or moral imperatives. The same thinking applies to historical events. The Torah is not interested in passing along to us historical events but rather how we should look at them and learn from them.

“Know that all stories that you will find mentioned in the Torah serve a certain purpose in connection with religious teaching. They either help to establish a principle of faith, or to regulate our actions, and to prevent wrong and injustice among men.” (MN 3:50)

Although I see no reason why I should question the historicity of most of the events related in the Torah, it is really irrelevant to the insight it is intended to teach. The point is the teaching that it is transmitting which is the same regardless of the fine details of the actual event. The story of the flood to me is a lesson on how human beings should behave when they see a calamity coming and how they should interpret it. Unlike the pagan world that developed the Gilgamesh myth to explain the cataclysmic floods that were still alive in human memory thereby shifting the responsibility to the gods, the Torah teaches that Noach acted with foresight when he became aware of the forthcoming cataclysm. Apparently the way the rabbis read it, there were early signs over several centuries that global warming was occurring and a cataclysm was about to occur. The Torah also teaches lessons about the breakdown of society and how that affected its ability to prepare or even foresee the cataclysm. To me that is, among others, the important messages the story sends and not the historical details of how widespread it was and so on. I believe a similar approach should be taken with every Torah narrative.

More to come…

Gmar Chatima Tova.

Textual Literalness - Contradictions as a Teaching Method.

Rambam in MN 1:46 writes –

“The same is the case with the information concerning the knowledge of God given to the multitude of men in all the books of the prophets and in the Torah. For it was found necessary to teach them that God exists, and that He is in every respect the perfect Being. That is to say, He exists not only in the sense in which the earth and the heavens exist, but He is an Existent who is living, possessed of knowledge and power, active, and all the other characteristics which our belief in His existence must include, as will be shown below. That God exists was therefore shown to the multitudes by means of similes taken from physical bodies; that He is living, by a simile taken from motion. For the multitudes consider only the body as fully, truly, and undoubtedly existing…”

Scholars of antiquity argue that we have to read the text as is and that early Judaism was closer to the religion of the neighboring beliefs in the region. From a historical perspective, they may have a point and the Torah seems to agree when it tells the story of the Egel – the Golden Calf. Immediately after experiencing the Sinaitic revelation, they turned to idol worship! The scholars however overlook a basic difference. While the other religions accepted corporeal gods, Judaism was teaching away from it. When it taught the existence of a unique God, that statement if analyzed properly, led to the conclusion that God has to be incorporeal. Unfortunately, not everybody can arrive at that conclusion immediately and it requires a lot of intellectual development before that can be understood and internalized. Torah as a teaching tool uses a strategy that keeps the issue of searching for an understanding of God at the forefront of a man of religion. It is a strategy that by necessity has to work at all stages of development of the individual and the group at the time it was given, and for future generations, no matter how primitive or how advanced and sophisticated the individuals and societies are. One of the methods it uses is to set out certain beliefs, postulates, in a form that can be accepted by all and encourages the individual to develop an understanding of its meaning according to his personal state of development and sophistication. It is this process of constant refinement of how a person understands God that is the real Avodat Hashem that leads to Yediat and Ahavat Hashem, the goal of religion.

The Torah teaches that God “exists”. The idea of existence when attributed to God is quite complex. What exactly does “existence” mean when we talk about a transcendent entity? To establish that God exists the Torah therefore teaches that as we look at the results of His existence, our own existence and the universe we are in, we extrapolate that He must have commanded, acted, created and so on. By attributing action to God, we establish in our mind that He truly does exist. At the same time, Torah teaches that He is incorporeal and that therefore it is forbidden to make any physical representation of God. Rambam Yesodei Hatorah 1:8 -

הרי מפורש בתורה ובנביא, שאין הקדוש ברוך הוא גוף וגווייה: שנאמר "כי ה' אלוהיכם, הוא האלוהים בשמיים ממעל ועל הארץ מתחת
והגוף לא יהיה בשני מקומות.
ונאמר כי לא ראיתם, כל תמונה
ונאמר ואל מי תדמיוני, ואשווה
ואילו היה גוף, היה דומה לשאר גופים

“It is made clear in the Torah and the writing of the Prophets that God is incorporeal. It says, “Hashem your God, is God in heaven on high and on the earth below” – a body cannot be in two places at the same time. It also says, “For you have not seen an image” [at Sinai]. It also says, “To whom can you liken Me and to whom can I be compared?” Had God been corporeal, He could be comparable to other bodies.”

These two teachings, that God exists and therefore acts and that He is incorporeal, are two contradictory teachings. That these two teachings contradict each other is not obvious to the novice and beginner and requires some sophistication. However, once a person starts thinking and learning he confronts the contradiction and start developing a more advanced understanding of “existence”, action and all the attributes as they relate to God.

“That God is incorporeal, that He cannot be compared with His creatures, that He is not subject to external influence; these are things which must be explained to every one according to his capacity. They must be taught by way of tradition to children and women, to the stupid and ignorant, as they are taught that God is One, that He is eternal, and that He alone is to be worshipped. Without incorporeality, there is no unity, for a corporeal thing is in the first case not simple, but composed of matter and form which are two separate things by definition, and secondly, as it has extension it is also divisible. When persons have received this doctrine, and have been trained in this belief, and are in consequence at a loss to reconcile it with the writings of the Prophets, the meaning of the latter must be made clear and explained to them. We point out the homonymity and the figurative application of certain terms discussed in this part of the work. Their belief in the unity of God and in the words of the Prophets will then be a true and perfect belief.” (MN 1:35)

Rambam thus sees the apparent contradictions, the dialectics, as a teaching method that lives up to the Torah’s goal, teaching men how to find God. As we grow in understanding and become more sophisticated, we confront the text and the apparent contradictions. We start developing a sense of when the text has to be read literally and when it is a metaphor or an allegory. This process is one of the various methods the Torah uses to keep us focused on our lifetime goal, finding God. Insisting on reading the text literally, as is the current trend in our community, defeats the Torah’s effort at making us an

ּ רַק עַם-חָכָם וְנָבוֹן, הַגּוֹי הַגָּדוֹל הַזֶּה

Surely, this great nation is a wise and understanding people.

I will discuss in upcoming posts if there are rules regarding how to read the different texts, those dealing with God and His relationship to us and our surrounding and those dealing with historical reports. I will also address the other methods Torah uses to keep us focused on the goal which will bring us back to Ta’amei Hamitzvot.

I wish all a Shana Tova and a Ketiva Vechatima Tova.

Textual Literalness - Law and Theology.

In the latest issue of Tradition, Rabbi Marc Angel writes an article criticizing the move in Yeshivot and schools towards teaching literalism when reading Aggadot Chazal. The article states the obvious but is something that needs to be said over and over again and Rabbi Angel does a great service to our community in doing so. The article however does not discuss literalism in Torah and Nach, other than in passing regarding the age of the universe. That is a much more controversial issue and needs to be addressed too. I would like to address it in coming posts as it is a question that I have been asked about many times and I believe needs to be fleshed out.

Rambam in the introduction to MN presents the problem very succinctly.

“… is to give indications to a religious man for whom the validity of our Torah has become established in his soul and has become actual in his belief – such a man being perfect in his religion and character, and having studied the sciences of the philosophers and come to know what they signify. The human intellect having drawn him on and led him to dwell within its province, he must have felt distressed by the externals of the Torah and by the meaning of the above mentioned equivocal, derivative or amphibolous terms , as he continued to understand them by himself or was made to understand them by others.”

Rambam describes a person who has become convinced by his knowledge and understanding of the Torah, the ideas that underlie the laws and what they are meant to teach us, that it is a valid system to follow for a person that wants to perfect himself. Having accepted the practical aspect of the Law, he now is confronted by the seemingly incongruous philosophical and scientific presented as the underlying basis for that same Law. The way it is presented, the words it uses to describe the theological underpinnings are perplexing. They do not agree with his perceived reality.

“Hence he would remain in a state of perplexity and confusion as to whether he should follow his intellect, renounce what he knew concerning the terms in question, and consequently consider that he has renounced the foundations of the Torah. Or he should hold fast to his understanding of these terms and not let himself be drawn on together with his intellect, rather turning his back on it and moving away from it, while at the same time perceiving that he has brought loss to himself and harm to his religion. He would be left with those imaginary beliefs to which he owes his fear and difficulty and would not cease to suffer from heartache and great perplexity.”

The first option is the one taken by many especially those that have already left the religion. They go with their intellect and abandon the Laws that seem to be based on flawed logic and theology. But the real tragic figure is the person who opts for the second choice. That person lives a life of pain closing off his own mind and submits to what he considers an illogical system. The tragedy is that he is submitting to a figment of his imagination. In reality, this person is submitting himself to a flawed theology - “imaginary beliefs” - while the rejectionist too is distancing himself from a theology that is false and never intended. Our Torah is not called Torat Emet in vain. Not only is it true but it is teaching how to find the ultimate Truth. It is intended to develop our intellect not stifle it!

When we read a book, we try to identify the goal the author has set himself when he conceived it. Understanding that will explain the style, the meaning of the different chapters and generally the concepts in it. A law book is not written in the same style as a book on mathematics or physics nor is poetry similar to prose. As we are discussing here the Torah and the books of prophecy, we must take the same approach to them.

When we look at the Torah itself, the five books of Moshe, as compared to the rest of the books of prophecy – Nach - we see commonality and difference. Torah contains Laws, detailed rules of behavior, what we refer to as the 613 Mitzvot while the rest of Nach has almost no laws. The few laws found in Nach are all derivatives or variations on the laws already found in the Torah. On the other hand, both Torah and Nach contain non-legal, theological teachings in different forms ranging from interpretation of historical or natural events and the relationship of man to nature and God to exhortation for ethical and moral behavior beyond the purely legal. There are very few purely philosophical discussions in the whole of Tanach as it is almost always cloaked in a story or presented as the underlying motivation for practical actions.


Like all books of law, the language in the sections dealing with legal matters is precise and defined. It is accompanied by an oral tradition that teaches how to implement the laws in practice. However, in the sections of Torah as well the rest of Nach that deal with the theological, whether interpretation of historical events or descriptions of God, His interaction with the world and human beings and generally the physical and metaphysical, the language is much more vague and equivocal. As its name implies - Torah stems from Hora’ah - teaching – it is a system that teaches people not only how to act but also how to look at the world they live in. These two goals define the composition of the Torah and how it is presented.

Laws that deal with behavior and actions have to be able to adapt to circumstances. They cannot be static and rigid. The same thing that may be correct under one circumstance may be wrong under another. A radical example would be killing another human being. The Law states that taking a life is criminal, however is killing Hitler a crime? Paradoxically it is the precise language of the law accompanied by the oral Law that supplies the hermeneutical rules and tells us how to read, interpret and put into practice that same precise text, gives the law its required flexibility. There is much to be written about this and I plan to do so in the future. Here I want to focus on the theological component of Tanach first.

Unlike the practical Laws that require flexibility because their truth depends on circumstances, the underlying basis for theology, science and the laws of nature, are unchanging and inflexible. The rules that regulate the universe are rigid and predictable. We just have to discover and understand them, which is never easy but attainable at least in theory. So too is theology which is the way we look at our existence and interpret its raison d’etre. We are searching for the one unchanging and inalienable Truth. Here the Torah gives us the goal that we are trying to reach but leaves the method how we arrive at those insights up to us. The proofs and methods that convince us of these Truths have to be arrived at by each person on their own. For example, the Torah tells us that God exists and is unique. Understanding why that is so is our goal. The process that brings us to that recognition is in itself a teaching and a goal in its own right. It is therefore a very individualized process that cannot be laid out in a precise manner. The Torah therefore concentrates more in presenting the end result, the belief and Truths that we have to convince ourselves on rather than the proofs themselves and how to arrive at these Truths. Vagueness is therefore the proper teaching tool.

To be continued…