Pemikiran Yahudi Mazmur 139:21: Akeidat Yitzchak, Kuzari & HaEmunot veHaDeot

David's encounter with Goliath stemmed from the purest of motives, i.e. to silence the blasphemer. When we read David's comment in Samuel I 17,26, "what shall be done for the man who shall slay this Philistine?", the word ye-asseh needs to be understood as "what needs to be done for the man who...? " David expresses incredulity that it should be necessary to promise a reward for the person willing to engage Goliath in combat. As David says in Psalms 139,2, "O Lord I hate those who hate You." David was not satisfied to have ousted Goliath according to the terms of combat set by Goliath. (17,9) It seems that having felled Goliath would have sufficed. But David insisted on killing Goliath, even though he did not even have a sword on him. He used Goliath's own sword to kill him with. In a similar manner, David did not wait to be commanded when he wanted to build a temple for G-d, but he volunteered to do so and prepared everything he could for that undertaking. In the end, though the temple was actually built by his son Solomon, it bore David's name also. Psalm 30 is introduced as a hymn on the occasion of dedicating David’s Temple. Even in Kings I, 12, when the ten tribes secede from the dynasty of David, they refer to the Temple as "Your house David." All this despite the fact that none of the building had been commenced in David's lifetime. Midrash Shocher Tov on Psalms 23, relates that when the angels remonstrated with G-d for removing the kingship from Saul and anointing David, G-d explained it to them in the following manner. When Saul, who was about to consult the Urim Vetumim if he should pursue the Philistines, observed the eagerness of the people, he aborted his original intention. (14,20) David, on the other hand, (Samuel II 5,23 ) consulted the Urim Vetumim when set upon by the Philistines. When he was told not to counterattack until he would hear steps in the tops of the trees, he waited. David consulted again, although he had already been given a general O.K. from G-d previously, and had been assured of success, (verse 19) He had already achieved a measure of success, as we read in verse 20. According to the Midrash, the Philistines, unbeknown to David, were in an excellent tactical position, and had David not heeded G-d’s command to wait until the tops of the trees revealed movement, his men would have become victims of the Philistines. It was David's obedience to G-d’s detailed instructions that saved his victory, whereas giving in to popular request for immediate attack would have resulted in disaster. Saul excelled in personal good traits, may be even more than David, but the test of a king lies in his preparedness to submit to Divine guidance and not to rely on human perceptions. This principle applies when Divine guidance is available through consultation of the Urim Vetumim located within the folds of the breastplate of the High Priest. Pity, normally a noble emotion, is misplaced when applied to Agag the king of Amalek. The meaning of a statement by Rabbi Hunna in Yoma 22, "how extremely careful must a person be who has G-d on his side," is applicable here. As Rabbi Hunna continues, "Saul erred once with fateful consequences, whereas David erred twice and no fateful consequences ensued." Saul, whose failing consisted in not accepting G-d’s discipline, was told by G-d through Samuel "I regret having made him king." Yet David, who had erred both in respect of Uriah and the national census, was not deprived of his kingdom. His failing was of a personal nature, it was not a failing in the essential leadership qualities that a king must possess. When Moses blessed the tribe of Yehudah (Deut.33,7) saying "this for Yehudah, the Lord will hearken to the voice of Yehudah," he refers to Yehudah's role as king. Providence will be with him, because he is the people's leader who relies on G-d’s guidance. Of him it is said "that he not depart from the Lord's way, right or left." (Deut 17,11) "By the Lord's command he will go to war or return home." (Numbers 27,17) The king himself determines by his own actions if Providence will be with or against his people. The sin of following one's own reasoning or instincts is a king's cardinal error, not even given to repentance, since it represents a fundamental belief. Saul, though as innocent personally as a one year old baby (Yuma 22) when he ascended the throne, erred in his capacity as king. (Samuel I 13,1) If Rabbi Nachman was troubled and had nightmares for having dared suggest a negative interpretation of this verse,why then was Saul's rule not the beginning of a dynasty? The answer clearly is because he was personally so infallible. From this the Talmud derives the maxim that in order for authority never to become dictatorial, the monarch or whoever is responsible for the affairs of his community, should possess some publicly known demerit. Otherwise, he might become overbearing. As long a he can be reminded of his own shortcomings, his conduct will be more restrained, and he will be more amenable to the common people's problems. In support of our theory we draw attention to the way Samuel describes the relative merits of Saul and David on two separate occasions. When Saul consulted Samuel via the witch of Endor, Samuel says to him "G-d took the kingdom from you and gave it to your companion David." (Samuel I 28,18) At the time of the debacle with Agag however, the same Samuel had said "G-d has torn the kingdom of Israel from you this day, and given it to your companion who is better than you." (Samuel I 15,28) This indicates that David may have been better than Saul in his capacity as king, but that Saul was second to none as a person. Also, David having committed the error of counting the people, repented of his own accord without any ifs and buts. Saul, however, even when he did repent having been urged to do so by Samuel, did so only with reservations. He tried to blame others for his own shortcomings, claiming that he had had to compromise with the wishes of his people. When Samuel states (Samuel I 15,29) that G-d in fact had not reneged, he explains that the expression nacham, changing plans is only applicable when conditions have not changed, but the one in charge changes his stance. When the prevailing conditions had changed however, any adjustments G-d makes to His plans are not in the nature of reneging, (compare chapter 11 re Noach) The subject in verse thirty "for he is not a changeable man" is David, not G-d. It is David who is being described as remaining constant by virtue of his character, and therefore a superior choice as king over Israel.

At the creation, we find no evidence that birthright was part of the rules guiding the affairs of man. Proof lies in the random order the names of Noach's sons are referred to on different occasions. This was changed when Abraham appeared on the stage of history. His descendants were to play a leading role due to their being descendants of Abraham. In effect G-d had said, "Until now I have bestowed blessings, henceforth I grant Abraham the authority to bestow and direct blessings" (Genesis 12,3). Abraham debated with himself if he were to bestow this power to bless on others. Since he was not certain that he might help weeds to sprout (promote the power of wicked people), if he took it upon himself to transfer this power to bless, he decided to leave well enough alone (Bereshit Rabbah 61). He waited for G-d to make His will known in the matter. G-d did bless his son Isaac (gave him the power to bestow blessings). Since Abraham had two first born sons, he would have had to bestow the blessing (power to bless) on both of them. He was afraid to err; on the other hand, the trait of "chessed," kindness, for which he was famed would not allow him to deprive Ishmael of a share in favor of Isaac. This in spite of the fact that he knew that his descendants would be known primarily through Isaac. Therefore, considering himself as the manager of the Almighty's orchard, he decided to leave this decision to the owner of the orchard. After Abraham's death, the owner chose Isaac, and thus we come to point two in our parable. When twins were born to Isaac, the older of whom exhibited signs of unfitness, problem three in our parable, this had to be dealt with. Isaac, true to his characteristic of pachad, din, i.e. justice, which our sages have credited him with, did not dare deviate from the principle of transferring power in accordance with birthright. When Jacob says some time later that "the One whom Isaac feared was on my side" (Genesis 31,42), this grants us an insight into the matter. An examination of all the instances in which a direct relationship or communication between G-d and Isaac is described reveals that the term used for "G-d" is invariably elokim, i.e. the attribute of justice. The only exception is the instance when G-d tells Abraham that Isaac is not to be slaughtered after all. This latter instance which taught Abraham that rachamim, mercy is one of G-d’s attributes, is the only time when this factor emerges as playing a role in the relationship between G-d and Isaac. It is understandable then that Isaac of all people would not deviate from the pattern of nobility of birth decreed from above. Isaac's own position as Abraham's heir was due to this very system. Add to this that Isaac personally had not observed any misconduct in Esau, and it becomes clear why he chose Esau to bestow the blessing on. Jacob himself had been very careful never to tell his father of the sale of the birthright, since he had kept hoping that he would secure his father's blessing by virtue of his superior moral conduct, plus the influence of his mother. He did not want to benefit by exposing his brother's unworthiness. This trait of Jacob was very laudable. Leviticus 25,36 tells us, "Your brother shall live alongside you." Our sages explain that this wording teaches that one's own life takes precedence over that of one's fellow man in a situation where only one of the two lives can be saved. If the object of one's quest for Divine help is personality growth rather than the acquisition of worldly goods, then competing for the attainment of that goal is permissible. Aristotle also states in his Ethics that self-love, when its objective is perfection of self, is virtuous. Our sages, when describing jealousy as a negative trait, do approve of jealousy when it involves envying scholars who know more (Baba Batra 25). The same idea is reflected in Bereshit Rabbah 71 in connection with Rachel's jealousy of her sister Leah (Genesis 30,1). She envied Leah her good deeds. This is why our sages can consider that kind of jealousy a positive quality. On the other hand, "good" character traits employed for a base purpose are viewed as a negative quality (compare Chapter 27 on Dinah). Our problem is to determine whether jealousy under the circumstances described is permitted even when the attainment of one's own purpose involves something detrimental to one's competitor. Consider the definition by our sages of the commandment "Love your fellow man like yourself." The Talmud Shabbat 31 explains this to mean " do not do to others that which is hateful to yourself." Aristotle defines it in a similar vein. In other words, we should want for our fellow man what we want for ourselves. We certainly do not need to want for our fellow man what he wants for himself. This is especially so, when our fellow man is wicked or a criminal. In Psalms 139,21, David expresses it in these words: "Must I not hate those who hate You O Lord, and quarrel with those who rise up against You?" Clearly the word "fellow man" referred to in the Torah means someone sharing the same objectives in life that we ourselves believe in. Since Jacob's motivations corresponded to the ones stipulated by our sages, the verse we quoted from Psalms may be applied to him. Having established this point, we return to item four in our parable. The problem is how to restore the position of leadership to those qualified for it. It does not suffice to deny G-d’s special blessings to the undeserving, rather action is needed to channel those blessings to those who deserve them. When Jacob blessed his grandsons prior to his death, he reversed his hands to ensure that Ephrayim would be the recipient of the greater blessing. Er, the firstborn son of Yehudah, is described as unfit, unworthy. Peretz and Zerach respectively, are not treated according to what the order of their birth would call for. Reuben, Jacob's firstborn, is not accorded the privileges his birthright calls for. David was not Yishai's firstborn, neither was Solomon the senior of the surviving sons of David when he was assured that he would be his father's successor. To prove that birthright as an automatic claim to the succession was not practiced at the time of the Exodus, see Numbers 3,3. G-d says, "The day I smote all the firstborn of Egypt, I established an exclusive claim on all the firstborn of Israel." Obviously, if succession by birthright had been the norm at that time, there would have been no need for G-d to underline that only from that day on would G-d claim the firstborn of Israel as especially beholden to Him. We see then that the practice of succession by birthright had been discontinued at some time, only to be re-introduced at the time of the Exodus. Later, after the episode of the golden calf, when this method of succession had again been found unreliable, the privileges of that group were transferred to the tribe of Levi which had proved its worthiness. This then is the fifth rule that we learned from our parable. Now we understand what the Midrash quoted at the beginning of our chapter had in mind. Since Jacob may well have been aware that the privileges of the firstborn would be abolished once the tabernacle was to be erected, why did he risk his life merely in order to hasten that event? The question is even more justified when we consider that Jacob derived no practical advantage from all his machinations. There is no mention of Jacob ever having offered sacrifices in his capacity as firstborn, and if he had done so, the fact would no doubt have come to the attention of his father. His father could not then have been surprised when he heard from Esau some forty-eight years later, that the latter had traded away his birthright. The Midrash wishes us to know that if Jacob's actions had been motivated by materialistic considerations, this would have been most dishonorable; since he was guided by the desire to secure for himself a higher spiritual level, however, such purpose was laudable. Jacob was aware that the heter bamot, permission to erect altars for G-d wherever one wanted, in order to draw down G-d’s blessing, could lead to grievous abuse if the excercise of the priestly functions was left in the hands of the unworthy. Such abuse would lead to G-d’s blessings being channelled to those who were undeserving, something that could not be pleasing in the eyes of G-d. Therefore, he hastened to restore the source of blessing to those who were fit for it for as long as the condition "wherever I allow My name to be mentioned, I will come and grant My blessing," existed (Exodus 20,24). He realized that at a later stage a central site for the residence of the shechinah, Divine Presence, would be established, and that then the function of priesthood would be performed only in that central place (tabernacle or temple) and only by priests who had to meet exacting criteria of physical and moral fitness.

3. The Rabbi: It can be designated by prophetic or visionary means. Demonstration can lead astray. Demonstration was the mother of heresy and destructive ideas. What was it, if not the wish to demonstrate, that led the dualists to assume two eternal causes? And what led materialists to teach that the sphere was not only eternal, but its own primary cause, as well as that of other matter? The worshippers of fire and sun are but the result of the desire to demonstrate. There are differences in the ways of demonstration, of which some are more extended than others. Those who go to the utmost length are the philosophers, and the ways of their arguments led them to teach of a Supreme Being which neither benefits nor injures, and knows nothing of our prayers, offerings, obedience, or disobedience, and that the world is as eternal as He himself. None of them applies a distinct proper name to God, except he who hears His address, command, or prohibition, approval for obedience, and reproof for disobedience. He bestows on Him some name as a designation for Him who spoke to him, and he is convinced that He is the Creator of the world from nought. The first man would never have known Him if He had not addressed, rewarded and punished him, and had not created Eve from one of his ribs. This gave him the conviction that this was the Creator of the world, whom he designated by words and attributes, and styled 'Lord.' Without this he would have been satisfied with the name Elōhim, neither perceiving what He was, nor whether He was a unity or many, whether He was cognizant of individuals or not. Cain and Abel were made acquainted with the nature of His being by the communications of their father as well as by prophetic intuition. Then Noah, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, Moses and the prophets called Him intuitively 'Lord,' as also did the people, having been taught by tradition that His influence and guidance were with men. His influence also being with the pious, they comprehended Him by means of intermediaries called: glory, Shekhinah, dominion, fire, cloud, likeness, form, 'the appearance of the bow,' etc. (Ezek. i. 28). For they proved to them that He had spoken to them, and they styled it: Glory of God. Occasionally they addressed the holy ark by the name of God, as it is written: 'Rise up, O Lord,', (Numbers 10:35, Numbers 10:36), when they made a start, and 'Return, O Lord' when they halted, or 'God is gone up with a shout, the Lord with the sound of the trumpet' (Psalms 47:6), With all this only the ark of the Lord is meant. Sometimes the name 'Lord' was applied to the connecting link between God and Israel, as it is written: 'Do not I hate them, O Lord, that hate thee?' (Psalms 139:21). By 'haters of the Lord' are meant those who hate the name, or covenant, or the law of God. For there exists no connexion between God and any other nation, as He pours out His light only on the select people. They are accepted by Him, and He by them. He is called 'the God of Israel,' whilst they are 'the people of the Lord,' and 'the people of the God of Abraham.' Even supposing some nations had followed Him and worshipped Him, their conversion being the result of hearsay and tradition, yet where do we find His acceptance of them and His connexion with them, His pleasure in their obedience, His anger for their disobedience? We see them left to nature and chance by which their prosperity or misfortune are determined, but not by an influence which proves to be of divine origin alone. Thus also we alone are meant in the words: 'So the Lord alone did lead him, and there was no strange god with him (Deuteronomy 32:12). The Tetragrammaton is a name exclusively employable by us, as no other people knows its true meaning. It is a proper name which takes no article, as is the case with Elohim in the form hāelōhim. It belongs, therefore, to the prerogatives by which we are distinguished. Although its meaning is hidden, the letters of which it is composed speak. For it is the letters alef, hē, wāv and yōd which cause all consonants to be sounded, as no letter can be pronounced as long as it is not supported by one of these four, viz. a by alef, and hē, u by wāv, and i by yōd. They form, so to speak, the spirit in the bodies of the consonants. The name Oh is like the Tetragrammaton (Exodus 3:14). As to EH’YEH, it can be derived from the latter name, or from the root hāyāh, and its tendency is to prevent the human mind from pondering over an incomprehensible but real entity. When Moses asked: 'And they shall say to me, What is His name?' the answer was: Why should they ask concerning things they are unable to grasp? In a like manner the angel answered: 'Why askest thou thus after my name, seeing it is secret?' (Judges 13:18). Say to them eh’yēh, which means: 'I am that I am,' the existing one, existing for you whenever you seek me. Let them search for no stronger proof than My presence among them, and name Me accordingly. Moses therefore answered: 'Eh’yēh has sent me to you.' God had previously given a similar proof to Moses in the words: 'Certainly I will be with thee, and this shall be a token unto thee,' etc. (Exodus 3:12), viz. that I have sent thee, and am with thee everywhere. This is followed by a similar phrase, viz. 'The God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob,' persons known to have been favoured by the Divine Influence perpetually. As regards the terms: Elōhē hāelōhim, it is a designation for the fact that all creative forces are depending upon God, who arranges and guides them. 'Lord of lords' has the same meaning. EL is derived from ayālūth, being the source of the forces [of nature], but exalted above them. The expression: 'Who is like unto thee among the ēlim,' is, therefore, permissible, placing ēl into the plural form. HOLY expresses the notion that He is high above any attribute of created beings, although many of these are applied to him metaphorically. For this reason Isaiah heard an endless: 'Holy, holy, holy,' which meant that God is too high, too exalted, too holy, and too pure for any impurity of the people in whose midst His light dwells to touch Him. For the same reason Isaiah saw him 'sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up.' Holy is, further, a description of the spiritual, which never assumes a corporeal form, and which nothing concrete can possibly resemble. God is called: the Holy One of Israel, which is another expression for the Divine Influence connected with Israel himself and the whole of his posterity, to rule and guide them, but not to be merely in external contact with them. Not everyone who wishes is permitted to say, 'My God and Holy One!' except in a metaphorical and traditional way. In reality only a prophet or a pious person with whom the Divine Influence is connected may say so. For this reason they said to the prophet: 'Pray to the Lord, thy God' (I Kings 13:6). The relation of this nation to others was to have been like that of a king to ordinary people, as it is written: 'Holy shall ye be, for holy am I the Lord, your God' (Leviticus 19:2). ADONAI, spelt alef, dalēth, nūn, yōd points to something which stands at such an immeasurable altitude that a real designation is impossible. Indication is possible in one direction only. We can point to things created by Him, and which form His immediate tools. Thus we allude to the intellect, and say that its seat is in the heart or brain. We also say 'this' or 'that intellect.' In reality we can only point to a thing enclosed by a space. Although all organs obey the intellect, they do so through the medium of the heart or brain, which are its primary tools, which arc considered as the abode of the intellect. In a like manner we point to heaven, because it is employed to carry out the divine will directly, and without the assistance of intermediary factors. On the other hand we cannot point to compound objects, because they can only operate with the assistance of intermediary causes, and are connected with God in a chain-like manner. For He is the cause of causes. He is also called 'He who dwelleth in heaven' (Psalms 123:1), and 'For God is in heaven,' (Ecclesiastes 5:1). One often says, 'Fear of heaven,' and 'fearing heaven in secret,' 'mercy shall come for them from heaven.' In a similar way we speak of the 'pillar of fire,' or the 'pillar of cloud,' worship them, and say that God is therein, because this pillar carried out His will exclusively, unlike other clouds and fires which arise in the air from different causes. Thus we also speak of the 'devouring fire on the top of the mount' (Exodus 24:17), which the common people saw, as well as of the spiritual form which was visible only to the higher classes: 'under His feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone' (Exodus 24:10). He is further styled: Living God. The holy ark is alluded to as 'The Lord of the whole earth,' because miracles happened as long as it existed, and disappeared with it. We say that it is the eye which sees, whilst in reality it is the soul that sees. Prophets and pious Sages are spoken of in similar terms, because they, too, are original instruments of the divine will which employs them without meeting with unwillingness, and performs miracles through them. In illustration of this the Rabbis said: 'The words: Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God,' include the learned disciples. He who occupies such a degree has a right to be styled 'a man of God,' a description comprising human and divine qualities, and as if one would say: godly man. Now in speaking of a divine being we use the appellation, Adōnāi--alef, dalēth, nūn, yōd--as if we wished to say: 'O Lord.' Metaphorically speaking, we point to a thing encompassed by a place as: 'He who dwells between the cherubim,' or 'He who dwells in Zion,' or, 'He who abides in Jerusalem.' The attributes of this kind are many, although His essence is only one. The variety arises from the variety of places where God's essence dwells, just as the rays of the sun are many whilst the sun is everywhere the same. This simile is not quite complete. Were only the rays of the sun visible, but not the sun itself, their origin would have to be demonstrated. I must enlarge on this subject a little more, because there are debatable points about it, viz. firstly, how it is possible to speak of space in connexion with a being that has no place; secondly, how can one believe that a subject to which one can point could be the Prime Cause? In reply to these objections we say in the first instance, that the senses can only perceive the attributes of things, not the substrata themselves. In a prince e.g., thou perceivest his external and visible form and proportions. It is not these to which thou must render homage. Thou seest him in war in one habit, in his city in another, in his house in a third. Following thy judgment rather than thy perception, thou sayest that he is the king. He may appear first as a boy, then as a youth, then in his prime, and finally as an old man; or as a healthy or sick man, his appearance, manner, disposition and qualities being changed. Still thou considerest him to be the same and the king, because he has spoken to thee and given thee his commands. The royal side of him is but the intellectual and rational one, but this is essence, not limited to space and not to be pointed to, although thou dost so and sayest that he is the king. But if he is dead, and thou seest the same old form, thou wilt conclude that this is not the king, but a body which can be moved by whoso wishes, which depends upon chance and other peoples’ humour, like a cloud in the air which one wind brings hither and another drives away, one wind gathers, another disperses. Previously he was a body which was subject to the royal will alone, resembling the divine pillar of cloud which no wind was able to disperse. Another instance is offered by the sun, which we see as a round, flat body, resembling a shield and giving forth light and heat, being in repose. Reason considers it to be a globe a hundred and sixty-six times larger than the globe of the earth, neither hot nor immovable, but moving in two opposite directions, from west to east, and from east to west, under conditions it would lead us too far to discuss. The senses have not the faculty of perceiving the essence of things. They only have the special power of perceiving the accidental peculiarities belonging to them which furnish reason with the arguments for their essence and causes. Why and wherefore are accessible to pure reason only. Everything that shares active intellect, like the angels, grasps the subjects in their true essence without requiring the medium of accessories. But our intellect which a priori is only theoretical, being sunk in matter, cannot penetrate to the true knowledge of things, except by the grace of God, by special faculties which He has placed in the senses, and which resemble those perceptible accessories, but are always found with the whole species. There is no difference between my perception and thine that this circumscribed disc, giving forth light and heat, is the sun. Should even these characteristics be denied by reason, this does no harm, because we can derive from it arguments for our purposes. Thus also a sharp-eyed person, looking for a camel, can be assisted by a weak-eyed and squinting one who tells him that he has seen two cranes at a certain place. The sharp-eyed person then knows that the other has only seen a camel, and that the weakness of his eyes made him believe that it was a crane, and his squint that there were two cranes. In this way the sharp-eyed person can make use of the evidence of the weak-eyed one, whilst he excuses his faulty description by his defective sight. A similar relation prevails between senses and imagination on one side, and reason on the other. The Creator was as wise in arranging this relation between the exterior senses and the things perceived, as He was in fixing the relation between the abstract sense and the uncorporeal substratum. To the chosen among His creatures He has given an inner eye which sees things as they really are, without any alteration. Reason is thus in a position to come to a conclusion regarding the true spirit of these things. He to whom this eye has been given is clear-sighted indeed. Other people who appear to him as blind, he guides on their way. It is possible that this eye is the power of imagination as long as it is under the control of the intellect. It beholds, then, a grand and awful sight which reveals unmistakable truths. The best proof of its truth is the harmony prevailing among the whole of this species and those sights. By this I mean all the prophets. For they witnessed things which one described to the other in the same manner as we do with things we have seen. We testify to the sweetness of honey and the bitterness of the coloquinth. and if anyone contradicts us, we say that he has failed to grasp a fact of natural history. Those prophets without doubt saw the divine world with the inner eye; they beheld a sight which harmonized with their natural imagination. Whatever they wrote down, they endowed with attributes as if they had seen them in corporeal form. These attributes are true as far as regards what is sought by inspiration, imagination, and feeling; they are untrue as regards the reality which is sought by reason, as we have seen in the parable of the king. For anyone who says that he is a tall, white figure clothed in silk, and wearing the royal insignia on his head has spoken no untruth. Whilst he who says that this is none other than the intelligent, sagacious person, who issues commands and prohibitions, in this city, in this age, and rules this people, has not spoken an untruth either. If a prophet sees with his mind's eye the most perfect figure ever beheld in the shape of a king or judge, seated on his throne, issuing commands and prohibitions, appointing and deposing officials, then he knows that this figure resembles a powerful prince. But if he sees a figure bearing arms or writing utensils, or ready to undertake work, then he knows that this figure resembles an obedient servant. Do not find it out of place that man should be compared to God. Upon deeper consideration reason might compare him to light, because this is the noblest and finest of all material things, and which has the greatest power of encompassing the component parts of the world. If we reflect on the attributes (which are essential whether they be taken in metaphorical or real sense) such as: living, omniscient, almighty, omnipotent, guiding, arranging, giving everything its due, wise and just, we shall find nothing resembling God more closely than the rational soul--in other words, the perfect human being. But here we must lay stress on his human character, not on his corporeality (which he has in common with the plant), or on his being endowed with life (which he has in common with the animals). Philosophers compared the world to a great man, and man to a small world. If this be so, God being the spirit, soul, intellect and life of the world--as He is called: the eternally Living, then rational comparison is plausible. Nay, a prophet's eye is more penetrating than speculation. His sight reaches up to the heavenly host direct, he sees the dwellers in heaven, and the spiritual beings which are near God, and others in human form. They are alluded to in the verse: 'Let us make man in our image after our likeness' (Genesis 1:26). The meaning is: I have displayed wisdom in arranging the creation in the following order: elements, metals, animals which live in the water as well as in the air, and those with fully developed senses and wonderful instincts. Next to this class there is only one which approaches the divine and celestial. God created man in the form of His angels and servants which are near Him, not in place but in rank, as we cannot speak of place in connexion with God. Even after these two comparisons, imagination can give him no other form than that of the noblest human being, who arranges order and harmony for the rest of mankind, in the same systematic way as God has done for the universe. At times the prophet sees princes deposed and others raised to the throne, and kingdoms judged, 'till the thrones were placed, and the Ancient of Days did sit' (Daniel 7:9); at other times he sees wrath poured out and the people in mourning on account of their threatened abandonment by Him, 'Who is sitting upon a throne high and lifted up . . . above it stood the seraphim.' (Isaiah 6:1, sq.). At other times, even outside the confines of prophecy, he sees the departure of the chariot as Ezekiel saw it, and retained it in his memory. For when the geographical limits of the land of prophecy were fixed, 'from the Red Sea, till the sea of the Philistines,' the desert of Sinai, Paran, Seir and Egypt were included. This area was also privileged. Whenever a person was found in it who fulfilled all the necessary conditions, these sights became distinctly visible to him, 'apparently, and not in dark speeches,' just as Moses saw the Tabernacle, the sacrificial worship, and the land of Canaan in all its parts; or in the scene when, 'the Lord passed by before him.' Elijah had a vision also within this area. These things, which cannot be approached by speculation, have been rejected by Greek philosophers, because speculation negatives everything the like of which it has not seen. Prophets, however, confirm it, because they cannot deny what they were privileged to behold with their mind's eye. Such a number of them, living as they did in various epochs, could not have acted upon some common understanding. These statements were borne out by contemporary sages who had witnessed their prophetic afflatus. Had the Greek philosophers seen them when they prophesied and performed miracles, they would have acknowledged them, and sought by speculative means to discover how to achieve such things. Some of them did, so especially gentile philosophers. The name Adonāi, (spelt alef, dalēth, nūn, yōd) must be understood in a similar way, because of the idea of divine sovereignty which it conveys. We say: 'O my Lord,' or, 'Messengership of the Lord,' which is another name for divine ordination. Some angels are only created for the time being from fine elementary corpuscles, others are lasting, and are perhaps those spiritual beings of which the philosophers speak. We have neither to refute nor to adopt their views. Concerning the visions seen by Isaiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel, there is some doubt whether their objects were newly created, or of the number of those lasting spiritual beings. 'Glory of God' is that fine substance which follows the will of God, assuming any form God wishes to show to the prophet. This is one view. According to another view the Glory of God means the whole of the angels and spiritual beings, as well as the throne, chariot, firmament, wheels, spheres, and other imperishable beings. All this is styled 'Glory,' just as a king's retinue is called his splendour. Perhaps that was what Moses desired, when he said: 'I beseech Thee, shew me Thy glory.' God fulfilled his wish on the condition that he should not see His face which no mortal could endure, as He said: 'And thou shalt see My back parts, but My face shall not be seen.' This includes the glory which the prophet's eye could bear, and there are things in its wake which even our eye can behold, as the 'cloud,' and 'the devouring fire,' because we are accustomed to see them. The higher degrees of these are so transcendental that even prophets cannot perceive them. He, however, who boldly endeavours to do so impairs his constitution, even as the power of sight is impaired. People with weak eyes only see by subdued light after sunset, like the bat. Weak-eyed people can only see in the shadow, but people with strong eyes can see in sunlight. No eye, however, can look into the bright sun, and he who attempts to do so is stricken with blindness. Such is the explanation of the 'Glory of God,' 'the Angels of the Lord,' and the 'Shekhinah of the Lord,' as they are called in the Bible. Occasionally they are applied to objects of nature, e.g., 'Full is the whole earth of His glory,' (Isaiah 6:6), or, 'His kingdom ruleth over all' (Psalms 103:19). In truth, glory and kingdom do not become visible except to the pious, and the pure, and to the prophets who impart the conviction to the heretic that judgment and rule on earth belong to God, who knows every action of man. If this be so, it can truly be said, 'The Lord is King,' and 'the Glory of God shall be revealed.' 'The Lord shall reign for ever, thy God O Zion, unto all generations,' 'Say ye to Zion, thy God reigneth,' 'the Glory of the Lord is risen upon thee.' Now thou wilt not reject everything that has been said concerning such verses as: 'The similitude of the Lord shall he behold' (Num. xii. 8), 'they saw the Lord of Israel,' nor ma‘asēh merkābāh and Shēur Kōmàh, because in the opinion of some interpreters the reverence of God is implanted in the human mind, as it is written: 'That His fear may be before your faces.'