Seriously, though, here is a plausible account of the happenings in parshat Vayera. It might be considered heresy, according to the ikkarei emuna of the Rambam, because it assumes a corporeal God. So you might wish to stop here. Still, Divrei HaRav vs. Divrei HaTalmid, Divrei Mi Shom'in? That is, Rambam formulates his principles based on what he understood to be correct and what he understood was heresy, and opposed certain other Rabbanim of his day who took opposite approaches. Yet what should determine Jewish theology? If the Torah honestly and indeed propounds X, then by definition that is our theology, and is a disproof to later, medieval Jewish theology. Still, we do have traditions of how to interpret Tanach, and should follow Chazal in this. Also, if need be, we can always appeal to the assertion that these events did not physically happened, but occurred in a prophetic dream, as Avraham sat in the heat of the day. At any rate, what follows is mostly not new, but you may not have seen it before.
How many angels visited Avraham? The common Jewish assumption is that three angels visited. However, we can read the narrative as stating that only two angels visited Avraham, just as only two angels visited Lot in the subsequent narrative. The fact that a third "man" appears to Avraham is no proof that this was an angel. Rather, say it was a manifestation of God.
The parsha begins in Bereishit 18:
| א וַיֵּרָא אֵלָיו ה, בְּאֵלֹנֵי מַמְרֵא; וְהוּא יֹשֵׁב פֶּתַח-הָאֹהֶל, כְּחֹם הַיּוֹם. | 1 And the LORD appeared unto him by the terebinths of Mamre, as he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day; |
For the next pesukim read:
Rashi, of course, picks up on this difficulty, and writes several comments. For example, on pasuk 1, he explains Hashem's purpose:
And [the Lord] appeared to him to visit the sick (Tan. Buber, Vayera 1). Said Rabbi Chama the son of Chanina: It was the third day from his circumcision, and the Holy One, blessed be He, came and inquired about his welfare (B. M. 86b).Given that otherwise we have no reason or content, we now understand the reason for the visit.
Furthermore, on pasuk 3, Rashi writes:
And he said, “My lords, if only I have, etc.” To the chief one he said this, and he called them all lords, and to the chief one he said,“Please do not pass by,” because if he would not pass by, his companions would stay with him. According to this version, it (אִדֹנָי) is profane (Shev. 35b) (i.e., it does not refer to God). Another explanation: It (אִדֹנָי) is holy, and he was telling the Holy One, blessed be He, to wait for him until he would run and bring in the wayfarers. And although this [“Do not pass by”] is written after, “and ran toward them,” the statement [to God, “do not pass by”] preceded it. It is customary for the verses to speak in this manner, as I explained in reference to (above 6:3): “Let My spirit not quarrel forever concerning man” [the decree that God would wait 120 years before bringing the Flood] which was written after (5: 32):“And Noah begot.” But it is impossible to say otherwise than that the decree preceded the birth [of Japhet] by 20 years. And the two interpretations [of אִדֹנָי as being profane and holy in this context] are in Genesis Rabbah .According to the explanation that it refers to God, we not only understand the kametz in the word "Adonai" (rather than being a plural or singular "lords/lord") but we also have a conversation between Avraham and Hashem.
And not only that, now the very text of the Chumash makes reference to the fact that Avraham interrupted his conversation with Hashem in order to fulfill hachnasat orchim. That there is an interjection of pasuk 3, Rashi explains away as being out of order. I would add that perhaps we can read pasuk 22 as continuing this conversation.
Thus, Hashem visited. Then Avraham saw the guests, asked Hashem to wait and not to go away -- "'My lord, if now I have found favour in thy sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant." Then, Avraham ran to them and engaged in hospitality.
What about the three angels by Avraham turning into two angels by Lot? Rashi handles this as well, citing a midrash about angelic purpose. On pasuk 2, Rashi writes:
and behold, three men One to bring the news [of Isaac’s birth] to Sarah, and one to overturn Sodom, and one to heal Abraham, for one angel does not perform two errands (Gen. Rabbah 50:2). You should know that [this is true] because throughout the entire chapter, Scripture mentions them in the plural, e.g., (below verse 8): “and they ate” ; (ibid. verse 9): “and they said to him.” Concerning the announcement, however, it says (ibid. verse 10): “And he said: I will surely return to you.” And concerning the overturning of Sodom, it says (below 19:22): “For I will not be able to do anything” ; (ibid. verse 21): “I will not overturn” (Gen. Rabbah 50:11). And Raphael, who healed Abraham, went from there to save Lot. This is what is stated:“And it came to pass when they took them outside, that he [the angel] said, ‘Flee for your life.’” You learn that only one acted as a deliverer.This explains the change from 3 angels to 2 angels.
Another answer, which can account for this, is that pasuk 1, which says that Hashem appeared to Avraham, is expanded upon in pasuk 2. Pasuk 2, with the appearance of the three "men," is how Hashem appeared to Avraham. As we will see, another pasuk states that rather than going on to Sodom, Hashem stays with Avraham, which leaves two angels to approach Sodom.
Avraham addressed the most prominent of them, or else all of them, in pasuk 3, asking them to stay and enjoy his hospitality. At this point, Avraham does not know that these are angels and Hashem. Therefore, the use of Adonai, especially spelled with a kametz, is both irony and foreshadowing.
Continuing the narrative, Avraham is hospitable to his guests. Suddenly, one of the guests, or else Hashem, tells Avraham that Sarah will have a son:
Also, when in the world do we see one of the angels return?
Rashi explains:
I will surely return The angel did not announce that he [himself] would return to him, but he was speaking to him as an emissary of the Omnipresent. Similarly (above 16: 10): “And the angel said to her: I will greatly multiply [your seed]” but he [the angel] did not have the power to multiply [her children], but he spoke as an emissary of the Omnipresent. Here too, it was as an emissary of the Omnipresent that he said this to him. (Elisha said to the Shunamite woman (II Kings 4:16): “At this season, at this time next year, you will be embracing a son.” And she said, “No my lord, O man of God, do not fail your maidservant. Those angels who announced to Sarah, said (below verse 14): ‘At the appointed time, I will return,’” [but Elisha did not promise to return]. Elisha replied, “Those angels, who live and endure forever, said, ‘At the appointed time, I will return.’ But I am flesh and blood, alive today and dead tomorrow. Whether I shall be alive or dead, ‘At this time, etc. [you will embrace a son.’”] (Gen. Rabbah 53:2).The reason for the shift to singular, according to Rashi, is that this is one of the angels. Still the angel speaks as the emissary of Hashem.
Suddenly, rather than the angel speaking, it is Hashem, that is YKVK, speaking. And not only that, he uses the same language of returning when the season comes round:
Well, Rashi explained above that Hashem would return, not the angel. So Hashem's picking up of this conversation thread is understandable.
But why would Hashem interject, now? And what happened to the angels at that point?
An alternative explanation is that one of the "men" continued the conversation, for he was Hashem. Thus, Hashem now reveals himself to Avraham.
The narrative continues:
Alternatively, one of the angels is Hashem.
Once again, an interjection from Hashem:
There are two ways of reading the following pesukim. They state:
Stylistically, if these verses were to stand alone, it would really really seem that this is a separate narrative. That is, Hashem is not speaking to Avraham here, but is rather to Himself. Compare with another scene of destruction featuring Hashem as actor, in Migdal Bavel, in Bereshit 11:
erda na matches nerda here. The same idea of Hashem's descending to earth and taking action.
Besides, isn't Hashem already down there, either alone visiting Avraham, or as one of the three "men" visiting Avraham? Why the need to descend? Rashi addresses what descend means here, noting:
I will descend now This teaches judges that they should not decide capital punishment cases unless they see it [i.e., they must go to the site of the crime and investigate the matter.]- [Divrei David]) Everything is as I explained in the chapter dealing with the dispersion (Tan. Noah 18). Another explanation: I will descend to the end of their deeds (to fathom the results thereof). - [Be’er Mayim Chayim]).Note as well that Rashi makes the connection to the Tower of Bavel.
According to LittleFoxling, all of Bereishit 18 and 19 is J. So the Documentary Hypothesis does not deal with this problem, since it would claim it was all a single source. There would appear to be a macro-level and micro-level description of the destruction of Sodom here, interwoven. (I would select certain other pesukim as well for this macro-level.) But here is not the place to elaborate.
Rashi sees this issue, that it appears that Hashem speaks to Himself, and clarifies the issue for us. He writes:
And the Lord said to Abraham, for He did as He had said, that He would not conceal from him.This is a great application of the question, "what is bothering Rashi?" It is clear that it is this issue that is bothering Rashi.
The narrative continues:
and Abraham was still standing, etc. But is it not so that he did not go to stand before Him, but the Holy One, blessed be He, came to him and said to him (above verse 20): “Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah has become great, etc.,” and it should have been written here: “and the Lord was still standing beside Abraham?” But this is an emendation of the Scribes (Gen. Rabbah 49:7). (The Sages of blessed memory changed the text and wrote it in this manner) [to avoid an irreverent expression, i.e., it would be offensive to God to say that He was standing before Abraham!]There are two ways to understand an "emendation of the Scribes." Either the text of the Torah as written was actually changed, or else the intent is the opposite, but the Torah was given as we see it, even though Hashem still stood before Avraham.
Note that following this emendation, we have evidence that two of the men are angels, while one is Hashem. After all, the "men" went towards Sodom, and two arrived, but Hashem stayed in order to talk and argue with Avraham. Thus, of the three initial "men," Hashem stayed before Avraham, leaving two "men" to go to Sodom.
At the end of this, and at the end of the perek, Hashem and Avraham finish talking, and Hashem goes on His way:
next perek begins:
Note the difference in patach here in this adonai, meaning "lords," and the one with a kametz with Avraham uses. But also see Ibn Ezra on that other one, where he says to go with the manuscripts that have a kametz there. Throughout this narrative, there is a conscious parallel to the reception they received just earlier at Avraham's tent, but this is not the post to elaborate on that theme.
Rashi, of course, picks up on the shift to angels, and notes:
the…angels But elsewhere (18:2) Scripture calls them men! When the Shechinah was with them, it calls them men. Another explanation: In connection with Abraham, whose power was great, and the angels were as frequently with him as men, it calls them men, but in connection with Lot, it calls them angels. — [from Gen. Rabbah 52; Tan. Buber, Vayera 20]A bit later, the angels tell Avraham that they were sent to destroy Sodom:
erda na before, in terms of the cry waxing great before Hashem.
A bit later:
kametz in Adonai in pasuk 18. Yet he is speaking aleihem. This parallels the difficulty in Avraham's greeting the angels in the previous perek. Perhaps we could say the shift to kametz is a result of the pausal form, it being at the end of the word?
Or perhaps at this point Hashem rejoined his two angels?
At any rate, Lot here starts a debate with the angels, or with Hashem, parallel to Avraham's negotiation with Hashem in the previous perek. Except Lot is more successful, managing to actually save a city.
Note it is an individual who answers Lot, who speaks in the singular in the aforementioned pesukim.
erda na. Rashi notes the presumption of the angels before, saying that they would do it.
The next pasuk:
| כו וַתַּבֵּט אִשְׁתּוֹ, מֵאַחֲרָיו; וַתְּהִי, נְצִיב מֶלַח. | 26 But his wife looked back from behind him, and she became a pillar of salt. |
Finally, I should make note of Ibn Ezra's comment early in the parsha. He cites an opinion that all three angels are supposed to be Hashem. He rejects this, noting that the three angels become two in the next story. Note that besides issues of corporeality of God, there is that extra "bonus" within that theory of a trinity of sorts, three who are one divine being. I think that Ibn Ezra's rejection is a good one.
6 comments:
Cute :-)
Notwithstanding the excellent observations you make here (as always), the major problem for your theory is that even without the Rambam, any reader of Tanach would conclude that referring to God as a "man" is heresy - and yet, in the beginning of the narrative, "behold, three men were standing over him." Never do we find God described in this way.
thank you for the compliments, and for the comments.
The thing is, in the narrative according to this theory, the description as "man" is resolved later on to be only in appearance. After all, they were angels, not men. Thus, the pasuk could be written from Avraham's perception at the time, rather than reflecting the actual nature.
Related to this issue of corporeality of God, BTW, is this earlier post about what Rashi does with a troublesome midrash in Sanhedrin which describes corporeality of God, and God's assuming human form. See here.
R' Elchanan Samet has a very similar approach to this in the second installment of his iyunim on Parashat Vayera.
There are weaknesses with this argument, for example the simple reading of verse 22 is that "the men" means all three of them (as it did previously), and verse 21 seems to say that Hashem plans to visit Sedom - which would place Him with the two "men" and not with the third.
On the other hand, in addition to what you mentioned, "vayelech" in verse 33 is unusual for an encounter with God unless God is taking human form .
Overall I'm undecided as to which interpretation is correct. The theological difficulty of your argument may be assuaged by noting that angels of God often refer to themselves as God (as at the end of the akeidah). Presumably the implication is that they're repeating the speech for which God has sent them as messengers.
The Rashbam contains aspects of both the opinion rejected by Ibn Ezra and your explanation, stating that HaShem appeared to Avraham in the sense of "ki shmi b'kirbo", and that the references to HaShem speaking refer to the greatest of the angels. (I recall seeing this pshat earlier today, but I don't think it was inside).
Post a Comment