Wednesday, November 04, 2009

Does Ibn Caspi maintain that Hashem appeared to Avraham in human form?

This would be quite a stunning position for a medieval French commentator to take. On the other hand, as discussed elsewhere, believe in certain types of Divine Corporeality may have been prevalent among certain French Rabbinical figures.

On the other hand, entirely separate from Ibn Caspi, I saw how this idea, of Hashem appearing in the form of a human, or three humans, can work out well according to the peshat of Vayera -- perhaps a separate post explaining just how it works out so nicely -- and so I may be reading this position into him.

Let us start with the beginning of Vayera. The first two pesukim read:

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;
ב וַיִּשָּׂא עֵינָיו, וַיַּרְא, וְהִנֵּה שְׁלֹשָׁה אֲנָשִׁים, נִצָּבִים עָלָיו; וַיַּרְא, וַיָּרָץ לִקְרָאתָם מִפֶּתַח הָאֹהֶל, וַיִּשְׁתַּחוּ, אָרְצָה.2 and he lifted up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood over against him; and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed down to the earth,

Some may want to say that these three angels are God. This sort of approaches the Christian idea of a trinity. But Ibn Ezra handily rejects this, writing:
[יח, א]
וירא -
הנה קצת אמרו, כי השם ג' אנשים הוא אחד והוא ג' ולא יתפרדו. והנה שכחו ויבאו שני המלאכים סדומה ומפרשים אמרו: שהשם נראה אליו במראות נבואה ואחר כן נשא עיניו וראה ג' מלאכים:
האחד בא לבשר שרה.
והשנים הלכו לסדום:
האחד להשחית.
והשני להציל את לוט.
ופירוש ויאכלו, כי נאכל הלחם, כטעם אשר תאכל האש:

Thus, that they separate shows that they are not one unit, and so vayera elav Hashem is not elaborated upon by the next pasuk by the three "men" showing up. He then adds what classic meforshim say, to explain the role of these three angels.

Ibn Caspi, at the beginning of the narrative, and perhaps on this first pasuk, writes:

יח (א) האיש אשר נמצא הגביע בידו ידע כעת זה הסיפור

What is this gevia, goblet? I don't entirely know. There is a possible reference to Binyamin. And perhaps there is reference to the mashal brought by Avi Ezer in this very parsha (for another purpose) of the silver goblet split into pieces, where depending on how big the pieces, one might figure out the whole. In which case he certainly divides his explanation into different pieces here, and seems to be deliberately ambiguous in each section.

Or the somewhat likely, it is a reference to his work Gevia Kesef. To cite Wikipedia:
Gebi'a Kesef (Mug of Silver), or Yoreh De'ah (Teacher of Science), supplement to the mystical commentaries on the Bible ("Cat. Peyron." p. 208; Munich MS. No. 267). The initial chapters may have been written as refutation of the apostate Abner of Burgos (Herring 1982). Kaspi finds great theological significance in the number 3 (Chap.V), and he speaks in this work about the origins of the concept of The Trinity found in Christian philosophy, attributing it to an earlier ternary division made among the Separate Intelligences by Aristotelian thinkers (e.g., Abu-Nasr). He also expounds the different philosophical implications of the diverse names of God in the Bible.
Here, we are dealing with three entities appearing, immediately after vayeira eilav Hashem. It seems quite probable that he relates these to the ternary division of Separate Intelligences by Aristotelian thinkers, such as Abu-Nasr. Of course, I haven't read his sefer Gevia Kesef. Therefore, the gevia is not found in my hand, and so I will be unlikely to understand his intent about the meaning of this Biblical narrative.

(That he makes reference to the gevia later in his commentary here gives some weight to the idea that it is not a reference to this other work of his, but rather refers to a divided and deliberately ambiguous commentary.)

But let us say for now that I suspect that it has to do with the idea that one of the three "men" who appear is some physical manifestation of Hashem's Presence, while the other two are mere angels who accompany Him.

The next pasuk:

ג וַיֹּאמַר: אֲדֹנָי, אִם-נָא מָצָאתִי חֵן בְּעֵינֶיךָ--אַל-נָא תַעֲבֹר, מֵעַל עַבְדֶּךָ.3 and said: 'My lord, if now I have found favour in thy sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant.

And "Adonay" is spelled with a kametz, usually reserved for the Shem Hashem. See what various meforshim say, grappling with this, and even different textual variants of a patach or kametz in this word.

Ibn Caspi writes:
ש(ג) אל נא תעבור מעל עבדך. אע"פ שידוע בכל ספרי
הקודש, כי לדבר (?) פעם ליחיד פעם לרבים, הטיבו מאד רבותינו שאמרו
לגדול שבהם אמר (ב"ר פמ׳׳ה), וגם מה שאמרו ז"ל אברהם שהיו
כחו יפה נדמו לו בדמית אנשים לוט שהיה כחו רע נדמו לו כדמות
מלאכים(ב"ר פ"נ). אולם לא יבין זה אחד מני אלף, מצורף למה שכתב
הרב במדרגת הנבואה:
Do not pass on from your servant -- although it is known in all Holy Books, that to the matter (?) sometimes it is written in singular and sometimes plural, our Rabbis did very well in stating that he said this to the greatest of them (in Bereishit Rabba, perek 45). And also that which they, of blessed memory, said: Avraham, whose strength was good, they appeared to him in the form of people; Lot, whose power was poor, they appeared to him in the form of angels (Bereishit Rabba perek 50). Yet not one in a thousand understands this, combined with what the Rav {=Rambam?} wrote about the levels of prophecy.
I may not be the one in a thousand, but I will give it a shot nonetheless. He is being deliberately cagey and ambiguous, because he is saying something that many may deem heretical or quasi-heretical. Thus, he is instructing us to look more deeply at his words, to find the shocking message.

And this is it:

True, the word (adonai, my master) may be written in plural and singular, and in this instance, at one peshat level, it can merely mean just that. But there is a message in what Chazal said. The Gadol shebahem is one of the three, who is the greatest of them. Who is this? The manifestation of Hashem Himself! (Or alternatively, all three are. But if we say only one, it fits in better with gadol shebahem, where Chazal intended only one of them -- Gavriel?)

Further, this was prophecy, not mere visitation by heavenly beings. And so it was Hashem revealing Himself in the way each could receive it. Lot was on a lower level, so he saw them as angels. Avraham was on a higher level, so he saw them as humans. But I think what Ibn Caspi is hinting at, through the medium of Chazal's words, is that both of them saw something other than the reality. For both, it was נדמה לו כדמות. But that was not the real form, neither for Avraham nor for Lot. Rather, in both cases, it was a visitation by Hashem Himself! And this was the prophecy.

Ibn Caspi continues, not on the main theme I am trying to develop. But he does call it a malach. On Bereishit 18:10,

י וַיֹּאמֶר, שׁוֹב אָשׁוּב אֵלֶיךָ כָּעֵת חַיָּה, וְהִנֵּה-בֵן, לְשָׂרָה אִשְׁתֶּךָ; וְשָׂרָה שֹׁמַעַת פֶּתַח הָאֹהֶל, וְהוּא אַחֲרָיו.10 And He said: 'I will certainly return unto thee when the season cometh round; and, lo, Sarah thy wife shall have a son.' And Sarah heard in the tent door, which was behind him.--

Ibn Caspi writes:
י) והוא אחריו. הנרמז במלת והוא הנה הוא לפתח האחל,
וכנוי אחריו למלאך המדבר 2 ) ואס סיבל העניין הפך זה 3 ) והענין אחד:

Thus, in vehu acharav, vehu refers to the door of the tent, while acharav refers to the speaking angel. Or the opposite, with the same meaning.

Finally, when the two angels finally reach Sodom, in 19:1:

א וַיָּבֹאוּ שְׁנֵי הַמַּלְאָכִים סְדֹמָה, בָּעֶרֶב, וְלוֹט, יֹשֵׁב בְּשַׁעַר-סְדֹם; וַיַּרְא-לוֹט וַיָּקָם לִקְרָאתָם, וַיִּשְׁתַּחוּ אַפַּיִם אָרְצָה.1 And the two angels came to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom; and Lot saw them, and rose up to meet them; and he fell down on his face to the earth;
Ibn Caspi writes:
יט (א) ויבואו שני המלאכים. אלו השנים היו מן האנשים
שלשה שנפרדו מאברהם שהלך עמם לשלחם. והגדול שבהם לא נראה
ללוט, ובאמת אלו השנים אינם השנים אשר להם
למשל שני הכרובים אשר מתוכם היה הקול נשמע
למשה , ואלו ענינים נכבדים, והכל נמצא בגביע:
"And the two angels came -- these two were from the three 'men' who had separated from Avraham, who had gone with them to send them off. And the greatest of them did not appear to Lot. In in truth, these two are not the two who, for example, are the two cherubs from which the Divine voice is heard to Moshe. And these are weighty matters, and all is now found in the goblet."
Thus, he counters Ibn Ezra's apparent claim that the fact that they divided, such that three became two, is a total disproof of the "revelation of God Himself" concept. It is indeed a disproof of a Trinity, joined as one.

So Ibn Kaspi asserts that these two angels are the same as two of the three men. But which one left? The "gadol shebahem." And as we said earlier, that gadol shebahem was likely intended as Hashem Himself!

Where he degrades the level of these angels, he is only degrading the level of "these two". They are not like cherubs, where Hashem's voice, and directives, came out to speak to Moshe Rabbenu. By the keruvim, we are dealing with a kind of manifestation of the Divine Presence Itself. But these two, who went to Sodom, were mere angels.

Not so for the "greatest of them." The Gadol Shebahem was like the keruvim. For michlal lav ata shomea hein. Those two were not like the keruvim, with the hinted implication that the third one was like the keruvim. And so the third one, which appeared in human form to Avraham, was a Manifestation of the Divine Presence. And that is why it is fitting that the kametz was there, when the gadol shebahem was addressed. And Hashem was accompanied by two regular angels.

All this works out remarkable well in terms of the peshat. To see how, read this post, for example, or Ephraim Speiser's translation and summary in the Anchor Bible Genesis.

By the way, this is not "real" corporealism. It is not a belief that Hashem Himself has human form. Rather, just like the midrash that has Hashem take equine form to tempt the horses of Pharaoh at the Yam Suf, this has Hashem take on human form as a disguise in order to communicate with mankind. Compare to how Manoach and his wife thought that after seeing the Ish Haelohim, that they would surely die. Even so, it is corporealism which nowadays is not just out of vogue, but considered heretical or quasi-heretical. On the other hand, if (and perhaps only if) this is what the Biblical text actually means, then by some definitions, it could not be heretical.

Regardless, it would be quite interesting if this is what Ibn Kaspi intended. And recall, once again, that some forms of corporealism were acceptable among the rabbis in France at that time.

Does anyone else have a plausible explanation of all of the references comments by Rabbi Yosef Ibn Kaspi?

Update: In order to better respond in the comment section, I am appending this segment from Speiser's Anchor Bible Genesis.

20 comments:

Yosef Greenberg said...

Nice.

But what you write some Rishonim "believe in certain types of Divine Corporeality", doesn't have to apply here. At all.

Ex: Hashem Ish Milchamah

joshwaxman said...

if you are suggesting that Ibn Caspi is speaking in metaphor, it is remotely possible.

however, i don't believe this to be the case here. for if so, there would be little reason to be so round-about about it. and why should he say that אולם לא יבין זה אחד מני אלף? (that some modern scholars have come up with an identical peshat, and that it works out so nicely with certain otherwise irregularities, clinches for me that this is likely what he meant.)

and the two malachim seem to appear as humans... this is not "real" corporeality, but a very weak one, i think.

unless you are saying something else... can you elaborate?

kt,
josh

joshwaxman said...

in Hashem Ish Milchama, i don't think the pasuk is saying that Hashem is an Ish, in any manner of peshat. rather, "ish milchama" is a unit which means "warrior". and even that, in turn, is a metaphor.

kt,
josh

Yosef Greenberg said...

Let me try again. :)

What he writes: : וגם מה שאמרו ז"ל אברהם שהיו
כחו יפה נדמו לו בדמית אנשים לוט שהיה כחו רע נדמו לו כדמות
מלאכים"

If indeed he means the Rambam; (I don't think I'm ready to learn Moreh yet, so my assumptions are based off the bits I gathered) can it mean that since the Rambam believes that Malachim are the lowest form of heavenly being and are therefore the ones to communicate with man. Therefore, Avaraham who was on a higher level had the revelation by heavenly beings appearing in a *higher* human form, as opposed to Lot.

Also, I don't see him mention the problem with the kametz. (It just seems to influence you.)

What אולם לא יבין זה אחד מני אלף would mean, I don't know. Maybe some people didn't believe that nevua should work this way?

"והוא אחריו. הנרמז במלת והוא הנה הוא לפתח האחל"

My point fits here. It still is a *malach* in common vernacular.

"יט (א) ויבואו שני המלאכים. אלו השנים היו מן האנשים
שלשה שנפרדו מאברהם שהלך עמם לשלחם. והגדול שבהם לא נראה
ללוט"

Hey, my point still fits. :)

"שני הכרובים אשר מתוכם היה הקול נשמע"

This one I really don't know, but you probably do. Is the krivim one of the ten levels? (Ofanim, Chayos, Srafim, et al) So the third one was like the krivim in that he was higher than the other two.

Yosef Greenberg said...

And to clarify, this higher level is not Hashem Himself.

joshwaxman said...

"Also, I don't see him mention the problem with the kametz. (It just seems to influence you.)"

he mentions it by commenting on "al na taavor mei-al avdecha." that pasuk begins וַיֹּאמַר אֲדֹנָי אִם נָא מָצָאתִי חֵן בְּעֵינֶיךָ. and that pasuk is "weird" because we would expect a patach.

and that is why midrashim say that he was telling Hashem to wait while he did hachnasat orchim.

ibn caspi mentions the kametz directly, when he says "אע"פ שידוע בכל ספרי הקודש, כי לדבר (?) פעם ליחיד פעם לרבים." the plurality or lack thereof is what is suggested by the kamatz.

and his response is the response offered by rashi to the kametz. see rashi:
http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/8213/showrashi/true
ויאמר א-דני אם נא וגו': לגדול שבהם אמר, וקראם כולם אדונים ולגדול אמר אל נא תעבור, וכיון שלא יעבור הוא, יעמדו חבריו עמו, ובלשון זה הוא חול. דבר אחר קודש הוא, והיה אומר להקב"ה להמתין לו עד שירוץ ויכניס את האורחים. ואף על פי שכתוב אחר (פסוק ב) וירץ לקראתם, האמירה קודם לכן היתה, ודרך המקראות לדבר כן, כמו שפירשתי אצל (ו ג) לא ידון רוחי באדם, שנכתב אחר (ה לב) ויולד נח, ואי אפשר לומר אלא אם כן קודם גזירת מאה עשרים שנה, ושתי הלשונות בבראשית רבה (מח י):
using Judaica Press's translation of Rashi:
"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 ."

so i don't believe that it is only bothering me. it bothered rashi, it bothered the midrash cited by rashi, which was the same midrash ibn caspi cited, and it bothered ibn caspi (as shown by the plural/singular comment).

in terms of angels/humans, perhaps. i also am no expert on moreh nevuchim. but i think there is a meaning above that, that this was a prophetic revelation of Hashem himself. i'd have to read the Moreh inside. but i think that his words can indeed bear what i attributed to them, quite well.

"Is the krivim one of the ten levels?"
i am fairly certain that by kruvim, Ibn Caspi does not mean actual keruvim *angels*, but rather the ones fashioned of metal over the aron, from between which Hashem spoke to Moshe Rabbenu.

kt,
josh

joshwaxman said...

in terms of rambam, to unfortunately use wikipedia as a source:
"Maimonides outlines 13 levels of prophecy, with that of Moses being the highest and most unimpeded. Subsequent lower levels remove the prophet as the source, allowing prophecies through increasingly external and indirect factors such as angels and dreams."
so angels in the first place are indirect. whereas hashem himself appearing to avraham might be a direct prophecy. so i can see a ready way to read rambam into this.

of course, this is based on wikipedia, and not a reading of rambam's 13 levels inside. the question is, once he gets to angels, does he speak of different levels of angels, where angels in human form are somehow less removed than angels in angelic form?

kt,
josh

joshwaxman said...

from here:
http://www.meru.org/Advisors/Sunwall/RambamProphecy.html

i found a listing of the levels, in ascending order:

1. Inspired actions
2. Inspired words
3. Allegorical dream revelations
4. Auditory dream revelations
5. Audiovisual dream revelations/human speaker
6. Audiovisual dream revelations/angelic speaker
7. Audiovisual dream revelations/Divine speaker
8. Allegorical waking vision
9. Auditory waking revelation
10. Audiovisual waking revelation/human speaker
11. Audiovisual waking revelation/angelic speaker
12. Audiovisual waking revelation/Divine speaker

so Rambam does explicitly make this distinction in levels between human and angelic speaker. the question is whether Avraham is a 12, like Moshe Rabbenu. or if human, then he could not be on a lower level than Lot.

We could make Lot a (6) and Avraham a (10). But that would be a strange assignment, and a great disparity. possible. but that would also not give any connection with "gadol shebahem."

it would seem more likely that he is saying that:
Lot = 6;
Avraham = 7;

or else that:
Lot = 11;
Avraham = 12.

even though that would contradict the "human" part of it.

also, to consider: was this a dream, or a waking vision. i don;t see that ibn caspi thinks this was a dream. if a waking vision/revelation, then everything should operate on level 8 or above. unless we say Lot (and his wife and daughters) shared the same dream, and in that dream he was saved; this seems rather implausible.

once it is on level 8+, i would guess that Lot would be (11). and if Lot is (11), then Avraham would have to be (12). and the idea of a waking revelation with a Divine speaker works out perfectly with everything else Ibn Caspi is talking about!

kt,
josh

joshwaxman said...

thank you, by the way, for your comments. it makes for a good chavrusa, which makes this all the better.

i probably would not have looked up the rambam's position on levels of prophecy but for this.

of course, you can still disagree with me, on this point and others. i just thought i should interject this thank you.

kt,
josh

Yosef Greenberg said...

"the plurality or lack thereof is what is suggested by the kamatz"

I am quite unlearned in the realm of dikduk (I know, I should be) so I accept this one.

"it bothered rashi, it bothered the midrash cited by rashi, which was the same midrash ibn caspi cited"

It still doesn't have to bother him. :) But I still give in.

"i am fairly certain that by kruvim, Ibn Caspi does not mean actual keruvim *angels*, but rather the ones fashioned of metal over the aron, from between which Hashem spoke to Moshe Rabbenu."

Correct. I meant that as well. He did say two keruvim. But isn't it possible that the nevua delivered to Moshe via the keruvim are this higher level of nevua we are talking about? I'm pretty sure Moshe would be capable of it.

Regarding your wikipedia quote: What I remember is that according to the Rambam, nevia is given from Hashem to the Saraf and passsed down until in reaches the malach, who in turn gives it to the Navi. So human form would be read into one of these levels. The keruvim, I presume, since they also had sort of a human form.

Hey, I'm beginning to like this.

As I'm moving down the comments I now see your comment from meru.org.

Its nice, but not the exact one I was meant. Its possible that "my" Rambam is in the Yad (Hamada). I'll check tomorrow. (Online sometimes gets hard.)

Anyway, Avraham is definitely a 10, as far as I'm concerned, since he didn't recognize them as non-humans. Not so strange.

(Yeah, the Rambam does call this instance a vision, but in the vision it was real?)

"But that would be a strange assignment, and a great disparity"

So what. How much do you know about this subject. (My apologies if you do.)

"but that would also not give any connection with "gadol shebahem."

Why not. Lot couldn't see him for obvious reasons.

"also, to consider: was this a dream, or a waking vision."

The Rambam, who is quite extreme here, only goes as far as to call it a waking vision.

"this seems rather implausible."
If you know this subject. :)

"i would guess that Lot would be (11). and if Lot is (11), then Avraham would have to be (12)"

Why would Avraham offer food to someone who speaks Divine?

I would put Lot at 6. And Avraham 10.

[The appreciation appreciated! Thanks.]

joshwaxman said...

"But isn't it possible that the nevua delivered to Moshe via the keruvim are this higher level of nevua we are talking about? I'm pretty sure Moshe would be capable of it."
absolutely. when he speaks of that 12th level, Moshe Rabbenu is intended.
specifically as regards Lot, it isn't this higher level. but as regards Avraham, he also has this extra thing, which is that third "man", he does have that higher, 12th level, direct Divine address, which is Hashem speaking through the keruvim.

"since he didn't recognize them as non-humans"
not recognizing them as non-humans (only initially -- i don't think this is so once YKVK objects to Avraham about Sarah, thus "revealing" Himself) need not mean that it was not a direct Divine address.

i would compare it, perhaps, to the ish haelokim who appeared to manoach, where they thought only after the fact (*perhaps* correctly, if Ibn Caspi is correct and I am reading Ibn Caspi correctly) that they had seen Hashem Himself.

"So what. How much do you know about this subject. (My apologies if you do.)"
i admit i don't. i'm only using the limited knowledge from there, as well as reasoning and what i see as the best-fit into all of ibn caspi's words.

"The Rambam, who is quite extreme here, only goes as far as to call it a waking vision."
and ibn caspi seems to me to be cloaking his commentary for a good reason, much like ibn ezra does when he has something particularly "heretical". (the quote marks to show that he personally does not deem it heretical.)

"Why would Avraham offer food to someone who speaks Divine"
as a korban? ;)
but seriously, because he was unaware all the way until the pasuk in which YKVK speaks to him.

"I would put Lot at 6. And Avraham 10."
I would be amenable to Ibn Caspi maintaining that Lot=6 and Avraham=10, so long as that is only in terms of the two men, and not the third. just because of his other comments, about the gadol shebahem, with the strong assumption that kametz means Hashem, coupled with the keruvim bit.

but practically, i don't see how a dream revelation works with the *actual* destruction of Sodom and the physical saving of Lot and his two daughters.

kt,
josh

Yosef Greenberg said...

"only initially -- i don't think this is so once YKVK objects to Avraham about Sarah, thus "revealing" Himself"

But not according to Rashi. (If it make a difference here.) Regardless, until then, he didn't know. So why did he reference the man as YKVK?

"as well as reasoning"
I find 6/10 to be reasonable seeing Lot's less-than-exemplary behavior before.

"and ibn caspi seems to me to be cloaking his commentary for a good reason"

Exactly. My view as well.

"but seriously, because he was unaware all the way until the pasuk in which YKVK speaks to him."

See my question above.

"coupled with the keruvim bit."
Yeah, that pushes me to 12 as well. (For Avraham, at least.) But still, he only call the keruvim a mashal. Perhaps because of this.

"i don't see how a dream revelation works with the *actual* destruction of Sodom"

Neither do I.

Ahh, I see what you mean. Lot had to have a waking revelation. I wonder. I should check the Moreh directly on this subject.

joshwaxman said...

"But not according to Rashi."
certainly not. either it was calling the eved by the name of his master, since in his earlier statement ( שׁוֹב אָשׁוּב אֵלֶיךָ כָּעֵת חַיָּה ) he was speaking in the name of Hashem, or else Hashem suddenly interjected. i am pretty sure, though, that when Ibn Caspi sees YKVK, he understands it as Hashem Himself.

"Regardless, until then, he didn't know. So why did he reference the man as YKVK?"
According to Speiser in Anchor Bible, this is when Hashem revealed himself as Hashem, as this Divine Avatar. How else would He know about Sarah's inner laugh? Only Hashem is bochen kelayot valev. And now the "man" himself, after saying that he will return, says "Hayipale mei-*Hashem* davar."

kol tuv,
josh

joshwaxman said...

upon further thought, i am fairly certain i misunderstood your last question. it is that if at this point in the narrative, avraham is under the mistaken impression that the man is just a man, why should there be a kamatz present in avraham's word, when he says "adonay"?

this is a very good question. and there is certainly an answer according to speiser, but i think one according to ibn caspi as well. i'll try to relay that answer later today...

kt,
josh

joshwaxman said...

in terms of how Speiser handles it, see the image i attached, above, to the end of the post.

if i might suggest another way, i would suggest that it is a deliberate delicious irony. of course it is interpretable as a weird pausal form, or else addressing the leader of them (who it would of course turn out to be Hashem Himself).

sort of like in Edgar Allan Poe's The Cask of Amontillado,
http://www.literature.org/authors/poe-edgar-allan/amontillado.html
when the soon-to-be-victim says:
"Enough," he said; "the cough is a mere nothing; it will not kill me. I shall not die of a cough."

a similar idea understood by the midrash in אֱלֹהִים יִרְאֶה-לּוֹ הַשֶּׂה לְעֹלָה, בְּנִי. a meaningful phrase, not necessarily understood by all parties. another one, עִם אֲשֶׁר תִּמְצָא אֶת-אֱלֹהֶיךָ, לֹא יִחְיֶה, taken as tzadik gozer, but still along the same lines.

so to, as a wonderful literary device, Avraham unwittingly refers to Hashem as Adonay with a kamatz.

In terms of Ibn Caspi, I am not at all certain that he thinks in terms of literary devices. If you carefully examine his words, however, he himself is careful to say that it *can* mean either plural and singular. That is, he does not (necessarily) endorse it as an intentional referral to Hashem by Avraham at this point in the narrative. And yet, the ambiguity and the midrash are enough to let him put forth his theory as to the identity of the third "man".

kol tuv,
josh

Yosef Greenberg said...

You understood my question correctly.

What I understand from Speiser is that he is saying that the Torah is saying it, as opposed to Avraham himself. That is, the Torah is slightly shifting his words to prepare us for what comes next.

"so to, as a wonderful literary device, Avraham unwittingly refers to Hashem as Adonay with a kamatz."

Do you think Avraham would use Hashem's name for literary flair?

"If you carefully examine his words, however, he himself is careful to say that it *can* mean either plural and singular."

Maybe that's what he's trying to say. That this a higher form of nevua, sort of closer to God Himself, in a sense.

In a way, this idea that he is not really referring to Hashem Himself should have some backing because of the fact that he is a French rishon. Believing that Hashem is corporeal was not a stunning position for a French rishon. Rather, believing that what the Rambam wrote is quite stunning and could have had him excommunicated, if not worse. Hence, אולם לא יבין זה אחד מני אלף.

joshwaxman said...

"What I understand from Speiser is that he is saying that the Torah is saying it, as opposed to Avraham himself."

kind of, and that is more along the lines of *me* than Speiser. Speiser basically says like the classical midrash, that he was speaking to the greatest of them (so that it would be singular), and that if not, *perhaps* some scribe along the way changed it, influenced by Vayera ailav Hashem in the previous pasuk.

so Speiser does not really use this pasuk, and the kamatz in this Adonay, in any way to advance his thesis.

that is more along the lines of me.

"Do you think Avraham would use Hashem's name for literary flair?"
not really, because that wouldn't make sense. but the *Torah* could have used the pausal form for the sake of literary flair. or historically, Avraham could have used sometimes the singular to address individuals among them, and sometimes the plural to address all of them, and the Torah saw fit to report on this particular usage and turn of phrase, or else to record it in this particular way, for dramatic effect. (After all, Biblical characters did not historically talk so woodenly and only say the sentences they were reported to have made.)

"Believing that Hashem is corporeal was not a stunning position for a French rishon."
it might well be stunning to others. raavad wrote his defense a generation or more earlier, and it is possible that Rambam with his declarations of heresy.

i think he was in the right intellectual climate for it, though that does not mean that some others would have opposed it, such that he would feel the need to slightly conceal it, only for those capable of understanding. (as ibn ezra often says, vehamaskil yavin.) if not a stunning position to take, at least something that could get him into trouble.

conversely, i doubt that agreeing with the Rambam back then would have gotten him excommunicated. my sense of it is that the charges of heresy were probably going in only one direction...

kt,
josh

Yosef Greenberg said...

"my sense of it is that the charges of heresy were probably going in only one direction..."

Are you sure? As far as I know, there was a reason they burned the Rambam books in Germany/France. Not heresy?

joshwaxman said...

good point. they didn't like moreh nevuchim and sefer hamadah, because of the philosophy therein (iiuc). but then, this is an historical question, whether there was this anti-Maimonedean sentiment in this particular place. (the same way as it is an historical question about corporealism in that particular time in this place.) on the other hand, he mentions Rambam's moreh nevuchim *explicitly* and the ideas contained therein, about the levels of prophecy. it does not strike me as extremely plausible that what he is *hiding* is Maimonodean tendencies. and אולם לא יבין זה אחד מני אלף does not indicate to me that he is hiding holding like Rambam, where he explicitly said he was right above. the implication is that there is some deep hidden meaning that he is only hinting at.

rather, the rather straightforward meaning of his words and hints, throughout, are a precise match to a well-known modern position which works out well with the text on the level of peshat. i still believe that, more or less, the explanation i initially gave is the correct one. the alternative strikes me as more as apologetics, which don't work out well with the implications of his words, and which are neither particularly controversial nor particularly different from the words of chazal, all done so (subconsciously) a rishon does not maintain something we ourselves would maintain heretical.

kt,
josh

Yosef Greenberg said...

subconsciously?

I am quite conscious that this is the reason. :)

I also try to do it since I believe that you have a subconscious (?) drive to have him maintain something we don't. :)

Its a great way to keep a balance.

LinkWithin

Blog Widget by LinkWithin