Pensée juive sur L’Exode 33:12

The animals supporting the throne of G-d in the vision of the prophet Yecheskel (1,3) have no idea of G-d’s appearance, nonetheless they praise Him at the appropriate times by saying "blessed be His glorious kingdom from wherever His place." However, the Israelites descending into the sea of reeds could proclaim "THIS is my Lord, I will glorify Him." Each one of them was able to point his finger at an image of G-d. In the future there will be a time when you will be able to say this twice, as we are told in Isaiah 25,9, "on that day he will say HERE is the Lord our G-d in whom we hoped that He would save us; THIS is the Lord we have placed our hope in, let us rejoice and be happy with His salvation." Man's position in the universe is between the sphere of the heavenly bodies and the lower creatures and inanimate matter on earth. Since he is composed of elements of either, these elements separate from one another when man dies. "Dust returns to the earth, and the spirit to the Lord." (Kohelet 12,7) Also, in nature there are gradations of animations such as corals, sponges etc. which are neither fully animate nor completely inanimate. Since we perceive that in all spheres of creation there are such gradations, the same is true also in the spiritual spheres. Everything is relative and measured against higher or lower levels of spirituality. The concept of tov, good, used in the Torah, such as when Moses demands from the people that they perform certain commandments, is always a relative "good" ("in order that you will be well of," for instance.) (Deut, 12,25) The "good" referred to is what it is possible for a human being to achieve within a certain framework. When Moses describes the task of a Jew as "what is it that the Lord your G-d asks of you, except to fear Him etc. (Deut, 10,12), he is telling us that we have been given the means to achieve a higher degree of spiritual perfection than other human beings, if we observe the laws of the Torah. It does not mean that this will make angels out of us, and remove us totally from any vestige of the animalistic within us. The mitzvot that are required of us, help us achieve our relative perfection. The same mitzvot are not required of the heavenly creatures, (angels) as they would not help them achieve their own relative perfection. "To be good for you,"- i.e. it is good for us, does not mean the same thing would be good for anybody else, (non humans.)- "to be good for us for all time." There are two kinds of "good" that apply to us. Acquisition of the "good" is divided into two categories, (a) activities, which while enhancing the self, the personality, have no impact on our environment, (b) activities which leave an imprint on our environment. Refinement of our intellectual faculties for instance, leaves the objects of our perceptions completely unchanged. If Job (Job 28,13) asks sarcastically about the value of true wisdom, which seems to him so ineffectual, the truth is, that what appears invisible is in reality the pure intellect. When Solomon states "that the advantage man enjoys over the animal is nil," he means to say that this very "nil," invisible intellect, is what separates man from the beasts. (Kohelet 3,19) Job, (28,12) asking "which is the site of understanding?" suggests that insight cannot be limited to spatial considerations, i.e. makom. "The deep said it is not to be found within me, and the ocean said it is not within me." This means that wisdom is not found in the physical part of the universe. Another distinction of the pure intellect, unencumbered by the physical, is the enduring nature of achievements of the pure spirit. Results of intellectual enquiry etc., are not subject to subsequent mutations through synthesis with something physical. The other accomplishments involving outside objects etc. are subject to whatever it is that happens to such material objects. Since material objects are subject to decay, accomplishments tied to matters material are similarly subject to decay and eventual disintegration. Actions by the Almighty fall into the aforementioned two categories. He is both an intellect, reigns supreme and is majestically separate; but there is also the “yad hachazakah” which while part of His intellect is what He employs when He wills happenings in this universe. By means of the latter, the yesh, is created from the ayin, the visible is created from the invisible, immaterial. The three worlds, the totally physical, the physical/spiritual, and the totally spiritual, abstract, are all part of this second part of intellect. Even the totally inanimate physical world that appears at first glance as everlasting, (planetary system, rocks etc.) is conceived already by our Torah and prophets as having a finite existence. (Isaiah 51,6) "Lift unto the heavens your eyes, and behold the earth; the heavens will melt like salt, the earth will rot like clothing. Similarly, its inhabitants will die were it not for My salvation that will last forever, as well as My righteousness which will not diminish." This and other examples teach us that all that is enduring is so only inasmuch as it uses the spiritual force it has been endowed with. Material things, even those of the most enduring kind, once devoid of spiritual stimulants- will ultimately disintegrate of their own accord. Our own concept of an enduring existence is based on hashgachah peratit, on G-d’s Personal attention to the creature or object in question. We do not hold that species as such are self perpetuating, independent of the specific will of the Creator. Despite the fact that we have described the purely intellectual as being superior to the physical, man's advance towards his relative perfection must proceed via the active, not merely the contemplative, since the latter is apt to lead to erroneous conclusions. This is why the Torah demands deeds, which through the system of reward and punishment, assure us of our nitzchiyut, perpetuity, or lack of it, G-d forbid. Aristotele is a prime example of the pure intellect arriving at faulty conclusions. Solomon says (Kohelet 7,16) "do not become too clever or you will be left desolate." The danger is that one may become a blasphemer, inadvertently. Our composition is such that we achieve our goal only through fulfilling the mitzvot. The prophet jeremiah sums it up when he says "let not the wise man boast of his wisdom...but let him who must boast, praise himself for knowing Me, for I do love kindness etc." (Jeremiah 9,23) G-d suggests that man imitate His attributes.

Since man is composed of two parts, the physical and the spiritual, he needs to operate with two kinds of perceptions, one which enables him to recognise the material, the worldly, and the other which helps him recognise and relate to spiritual phenomena or spiritual aspects of other human beings. When we talk about "knowing so and so," we define "so and so" in terms of height, width, colour etc. We perceive that he is human by a different cognitive process, a process reserved for recognising intangible abstract concepts. The former process is called hakkarah, recognition, the latter yediyah, knowledge. When the brothers brought Joseph's blood-drenched coat to their father Jacob, they said "do you recognise if this is the coat of your son?" This is a term applicable only to material things. When G'd talks about Abraham, prior to revealing to him the impending destruction of Sodom, He says "for I know him, in order that he will command etc." This clearly describes cognition of Abraham's personality, something intangible. Since it is not easy to acquire the latter facility, our sages have frequently illustrated abstract concepts by employing parables. The phenomena described in such parables are a sort of crutch to help us translate these concepts into the abstract. The master par excellence of such parables is king Solomon, whose parables acquired international and enduring fame. He employed the double entendre for instance, when he advised the lazy man to learn from the ant which lays in a food supply in advance of the oncoming winter. (Proverbs 6) The hidden message is that man who has been given a brain should use and condition it, so that when the difficult time (winter) arrives, he will be prepared to cope with it, since he is aware of the purpose of difficult periods. The Torah also employs such parables on occasion. When Moses says in Deut 32,46, "pay attention to all the matters which I testify against you this day...for it is not an empty matter... but it is your life," the reference is to the fact that words of admonition are not to be understood only at face value, but they address themselves also to our ability to comprehend spiritual concepts. (see our commentary about G'd talking to Adam in Eden, chapter seven) A similar double entendre is contained in the Torah's legislation about warfare. The Torah legislates about physical warfare, of course; but internal struggles in the soul are being described at the same time. By overcoming internal foes, the soldier readies himself to overcome external foes and to conquer foreign lands. (Internal struggles may also include the fight of the body to overcome a virus it has been invaded by, for instance) A person's face reflects inner struggles, just as warfare between nations is something visible that cannot be concealed. We see this from the comment of Yonadav to Amnon. (Samuel II 13,4.) In order to treat such internal struggles, a doctor needs to be thoroughly familiar with the chemistry of the body, and he needs to be able to compensate for any chemical imbalances in the system of the afflicted patient. The most difficult war however, is the struggle between conflicting emotions or characteristics that goes on within one's personality. When love and jealousy battle with one another, when greed and generosity find themselves in conflict within the same person, this is serious indeed. When Artaxerxes accuses Nechemyah of a face which expresses sadness and anger, pointing out that the latter was not physically unwell, he alludes to the inner struggle that leaves its mark on a person's facial expressions. (Nechemyah 2,3) (compare our commentary chapter sixty seven) In spite of visible symptoms of psychological illness, the doctor who undertakes to cure same requires even more expertise than the one who cures physical ills. Since G'd is the greatest of all doctors, David proclaims: "favour me O Lord, for I am bowed down. Heal me O G'd, for my bones are afflicted; and above all my soul which is very afflicted. (Psalms 6,3-4, et al) Discussion of the verses in our Parshah will be divided into those dealing with physical warfare, and those dealing with inner conflicts. The three main objectives of a general in charge of a military campaign are summed up by Sancheriv. (Kings II chapter 18) They are: 1) words of the lips. 2) counsel. 3) bravery. In other words, a list of objectives, (words) strategic and tactical planning, (counsel) and heroism and bravery in the execution of such plans. Sancheriv accuses Chiskiyahu of breach of trust, and asks "on whom do you rely that you have dared to rebel against me?" This provided the excuse for his attack. He then ridicules any hope Chiskiyahu may be entertaining of making a successful defence, by describing Egypt and any other potential allies as useless. Thirdly, since Chiskiyahu's plans would be doomed to failure anyways, he asks who would display the heroism needed when they knew they were fighting for a lost cause! Whenever the Jewish people mobilise for warfare, the above mentioned three basic rules are observed and are described in our Parshah.

(1) Since fulfilment of the commandment to circumcise himself and all the male members of his household simultaneously could put his whole household in jeopardy in the event of a hostile attack, Abraham might have decided to temporarily move close to his allies Aner, Eshkol, and Mamre, in order to discourage any attack. Therefore, it is reported where G-d spoke to Abraham. Even though Abraham was only in temporary quarters, he qualified for the vision. That Abraham had greatly risen in stature is clear from the fact that he did not have to move from his seat when G-d spoke to him, as he had on previous occasions. Our sages say that G-d came to visit Abraham on the third day of his being sick due to the effects of the circumcision (Baba Metzia 86). Since Abraham and Sarah hosted what looked like very ordinary individuals in such a generous fashion, it was fitting that the reward for such hospitality should be announced by one of the guests himself. (2) This is the reason why all the details of this act of hospitality are worth recording. Abraham could have skipped having dinner guests this once, in view of his state of health; he could have withdrawn into his tent long before the travellers had a chance to reach him. Instead, he ran forward, imploring them, as if they were doing him a favor by dining with him, instead of his doing them a favor by inviting them. (3) He begged one of them to interrupt his journey, so as not to be guilty of detaining all three of them. However, the hospitality offer was extended to all three of them, so that they would not misinterpret his first statement as "Please do not pass by." The dot on the word "my lord", indicates that what these men were going to say to Abraham later, would be a message from the Shechinah, the Divine Presence. Abraham offered little, to prove that he did not mean to delay his guests unduly, knowing that had they really been interested in food, they would not have chosen to take a route that bypassed population centers with ample food supplies. However, he emphasized the quality of the bread which, since it refreshes the heart as proven in many other places in the Bible, restores one's spirits also. By rushing about personally and attending to all the details, he caused his guests a minimum of delay. The angels followed the talmudic dictum, "When in Rome, do as the Romans do" (Bereshit Rabbah 48). When Moses went to heaven, he did not eat or drink; when the angels came to earth, they ate and drank. The fact that their eating is especially mentioned teaches that one is to conform with local customs. Their purpose in eating, of course, was to derive the spiritual nourishment contained in the food. Just as abstinence from certain types of food is prescribed because of the negative influence of such food on our spiritual equipment, so consumption of the right kind of food at the right time and in the correct amount is of benefit to our spiritual equipment (compare Chapter 32). Further details about this can be found in Numbers Chapter 28, in connection with the daily offerings. (4) The fact that Abraham is described as standing in a position enabling him to wait on the travelers and to observe them in detail, is to show that they really did eat the food served to them. (7) After all these efforts on Abraham's part, the angels enquire after Sarah. They want Abraham present for the message, so that from the criticism they will voice about Sarah's attitude, Abraham will realize that he himself should have been subject to similar criticism from G-d at the time G-d had made the promise to him, although at that time G-d had not voiced such criticism. When the prophet Elisha asked the woman what he could do for her (Kings II Chapter 4), he had been inspired by the tidings Abraham and Sarah had received in our Parshah in return for their hospitality. He assumed that the woman and her husband would qualify for a similar reward, just as later proved to be the case. (5) We must assume that Abraham had indeed not told Sarah about her becoming a mother, in order for G-d to tell her directly. Perhaps he felt that if she heard such a promise only second hand, she would be even more incredulous than he himself had been when G-d had told him directly. G-d had reserved this moment to criticize Abraham, and that is the reason he was asked, "Why did Sarah laugh?" Her denial may be understood as follows. When one's conduct is questioned by someone superior to oneself, it is seemly to appear bashful and to ask rhetorically and deprecatingly "Could I really have been guilty of such a misdemeanor?" Sarah's "denial" then and the "fear" mentioned is the reverence Sarah felt for the words of the angels. Or, as Maimonides says, the fact that she had no idea that these men were angels made her discount their words. Only after she realized that these men had been able to read her mind did she become afraid. She denied only having laughed at the fact that the prediction had been made in the name of G-d. When the angels departed, Abraham accompanied them, unaware that he was in fact impeding their task in Sodom. The angels on their part refrained from discussing their mission until G-d said, "Shall I hide from Abraham etc." Thereupon they began to discuss it, no longer concerned if Abraham was listening. (8) Two preconditions are needed to allow one to be present when the judge makes his judgment. 1) An intimate relationship with the accused, such as being father, mother, master, servant etc. 2) An individual who is truly searching for justice. In the first case, the father is allowed to be present since he could assist in the defense of his son; in the second case, such a third party would learn moral lessons from the judgments imposed and instil those lessons in his own environment. In Abraham's case, he qualified on both counts. He was destined to become the father of a multitude of nations, and thus had a paternal interest in other human beings; also as a truth-seeking individual, he would instruct his household and environment in ways to apply the judgments he had observed in the making. G-d decided to view Abraham in this role, because having made all the promises to Abraham, his involvement in the decision-making process about the punishment for the people of Sodom etc., would ensure further that all G-d’s promises concerning Abraham's seed would be fulfilled. The expression yadativ, for I know him, instead of hikartiv, is not accidental. The latter expression is used when one knows someone intellectually, understands how his mind works; the former refers to knowing how someone's heart, someone senses work. It is clear that when G-d speaks, He always uses yadati, since He has such intimate knowledge of all of us. The difference between G-d’s "knowledge” and our "knowledge" is that man arrives at an understanding of a whole only after having comprehended the parts and then combining knowledge of the parts to obtain an overview of things. The reverse applies to G-d. He has a knowledge of man's whole personality. Only on special occasions does He examine the constituent parts of man. In this instance, G-d was well aware of the character and actions of the Sodomites. (9) This knowledge was reinforced by the complaints of the victims of the Sodomites. G-d still had to check if these complaints constituted exceptions to the general behavior of the Sodomites within their city. If so, i.e. "as its outcry that has come to Me," if indeed all the Sodomites participated in that kind of behavior, that would mark their end, their destruction. If not, other kinds of retribution might be in order. The test then would be the way the Sodomites would treat the angels that had come to Lot (strangers to the townsfolk). Contrary to the view held by some, that nissayon, test, is designed to make the meritorious person emerge victoriously from such test, and that those unable to prove themselves, G-d does not bother to test at all. I do not believe that that is the function of tests. When G-d gave the Israelites the man, heavenly bread, the Torah writes, "In order to test them if they will walk in My teachings or not" (Exodus 16,4). We observe in that instance that some people failed the test. Similarly, the case of the false prophet, the appearance of which is described by the Torah as a test of the people's true faith (Deut. 13,4). We know that numerous people failed such tests when confronted by false prophets at various times in our history. Here, too, the arrival of these strangers at Lot's house is made the final test of the population's attitude. This will be discussed in greater detail in the next chapter. (10) When Abraham overheard the conversation between the angels, and they had departed from him, he decided to remain standing before G-d to approach Him on behalf of the people who appeared doomed. Since the angels had obviously had permission to discuss their mission in Abraham's presence, Abraham felt obliged to engage G-d in conversation about it. His opening remarks were as follows, "Since You obviously will not destroy the righteous together with the wicked, if by chance there are fifty righteous people, will You really rather destroy than save the place on account of the fifty righteous people within it?" The few innocents left to themselves, especially if minors, would ultimately suffer the same fate as the adults that had been killed, and thus G-d’s justice would appear as not having distinguished between the guilty and the innocent (the example of Nineveh being saved on account of the innocent children who needed parents to look after them is discussed in Chapter 13 in a slightly different context). Abraham referred to two possibilities: a) chalilah, unthinkable, to kill both the guilty and the innocent simultaneously; b) It would not appear just even if the innocent would die merely because their environment had been destroyed and they had been left to fend for themselves in impossible circumstances. (11) Abraham chose the number fifty as an opening gambit, because on the one hand, forced migration by such a group of people is a major hardship, whereas a larger number of people form a self-contained unit and can easily form a new community. Fifty are not yet enough to survive comfortably on their own strength and resources. (12) When Abraham saw that G-d concurred readily, he surmised that there simply were not fifty good people in Sodom; therefore, he lowered the target figure gradually. The justification "since I have started to speak already," signifies that he is aware he has already overstepped the bounds of propriety, that he is asking lifnim mishurat hadin, something beyond the demands of justice. As the numbers get smaller, and removal of so few people from the city is less of an upheaval, Abraham each time justifies his continued pleading on behalf of the innocent. Once it had become clear that there was only Lot that could be saved, saving him rather than saving the city became the easier solution. The mention of G-d departing from Abraham indicates that, for the moment, Abraham's prophetic powers had ceased to be operational. False prophets, however, never experience the difference between the time G-d is in contact with them and when they have been tuned out.