Chasidut su Genesi 4:25
וַיֵּ֨דַע אָדָ֥ם עוֹד֙ אֶת־אִשְׁתּ֔וֹ וַתֵּ֣לֶד בֵּ֔ן וַתִּקְרָ֥א אֶת־שְׁמ֖וֹ שֵׁ֑ת כִּ֣י שָֽׁת־לִ֤י אֱלֹהִים֙ זֶ֣רַע אַחֵ֔ר תַּ֣חַת הֶ֔בֶל כִּ֥י הֲרָג֖וֹ קָֽיִן׃
Adamo avendo nuovamente conosciuto sua moglie, essa partorì un figlio, al quale impose nome Sceth, (con dire): Poichè il Signore mi costituì un’altra prole, in luogo di Abele, posciachè Caino l’uccise.
Kedushat Levi
Seeing that all the other prophets received their prophetic insights through an intermediary, i.e. Moses, it could not be as powerful as that of Moses who had received it directly from G’d, [but it had not been detached from its source, G’d, but was dependent on Moses’ continued close attachment to its source. Ed.] Prior to Moses no one had as close a relationship, described also as G’d speaking to Moses “mouth to mouth,” i.e. directly, not by means of “visions,” i.e. images seen or nocturnally or at best when the recipient was awake. There had remained a gap between how Avraham had related to G’d and how Moses had related to Him, a gap which G’d here describes as a lower level of communication from Him.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Kedushat Levi
[Before continuing, it is important for the reader to remember that of all the sensory perceptions at our disposal, the eyes, i.e. “seeing,” are considered by the Torah as the most reliable, and therefore testimony given at court must always be based on what has been witnessed by one’s eyes. Ed.]
We need to appreciate also that there are two ways of examining what one has seen, i.e. ראיה. One is merely a category of visually perceiving the outline and colour of the object “seen,” whereas the other includes the person seeing being able to understand the deeper meaning of what his eyes have “seen.,” examining its essence, something known as ידיעה, “knowing”, understanding. This latter category of visual perception is known as בחינת אותיות, examining the “letters,” i.e. the structure of what the image consists of. When Adam had marital relations with his wife Chavah for the first time, (Genesis 4,25), the Torah describes the experience with the words: וידע אדם את אשתו, “Adam gained intimate knowledge of the essence of his wife.” Whereas “seeing” implies that one perceives from the “outside,” ידיעה, understanding the essence of something, implies a much more intimate connection to the matter which is the subject of one’s knowledge. This kind of intimate knowledge is possible only in domains that are completely spiritual, disembodied, i.e. beyond the world of the אותיות, “letters.” True “knowledge” (in the sense of identifying with the essence of the subject or object), presupposes negating any personal, ego-oriented relation to it. This also accounts for prophets appearing to act as if they had taken leave of their senses while they were receiving messages from the transcendental domains. As a result of these transcendental messages these prophets could feel greatly distressed when receiving messages concerning the gentile nations, as these messages originated in a domain that knows only “goodness,” (as we explained) so that the prophet would assume that what would be “good” for the gentiles in the long run would also be good for them in the immediate future, and therefore harmful for the people of Israel. This is one of the limitations every prophet labours under, as G’d explained to Moses in Exodus 33,20, כי לא יראני האדם וחי, i.e. that as long as the prophet’s soul is still within his mortal body, he cannot “see” i.e. completely understand what G’d is doing.
The difference between these two levels of “seeing,” is also the difference between כלל ופרט, “a general principle and its application to a specific situation.” [The 13 methods of exegesis of the Torah composed by Rabbi Yishmael, by means of which texts in the written Torah can be understood as halachically accepted. Ed.]
Our author explains this as the difference between “category 10 and not 11,” (Mishnah 4) a term used in the Sefer Yetzirah, the oldest kabbalistic text.
We need to appreciate also that there are two ways of examining what one has seen, i.e. ראיה. One is merely a category of visually perceiving the outline and colour of the object “seen,” whereas the other includes the person seeing being able to understand the deeper meaning of what his eyes have “seen.,” examining its essence, something known as ידיעה, “knowing”, understanding. This latter category of visual perception is known as בחינת אותיות, examining the “letters,” i.e. the structure of what the image consists of. When Adam had marital relations with his wife Chavah for the first time, (Genesis 4,25), the Torah describes the experience with the words: וידע אדם את אשתו, “Adam gained intimate knowledge of the essence of his wife.” Whereas “seeing” implies that one perceives from the “outside,” ידיעה, understanding the essence of something, implies a much more intimate connection to the matter which is the subject of one’s knowledge. This kind of intimate knowledge is possible only in domains that are completely spiritual, disembodied, i.e. beyond the world of the אותיות, “letters.” True “knowledge” (in the sense of identifying with the essence of the subject or object), presupposes negating any personal, ego-oriented relation to it. This also accounts for prophets appearing to act as if they had taken leave of their senses while they were receiving messages from the transcendental domains. As a result of these transcendental messages these prophets could feel greatly distressed when receiving messages concerning the gentile nations, as these messages originated in a domain that knows only “goodness,” (as we explained) so that the prophet would assume that what would be “good” for the gentiles in the long run would also be good for them in the immediate future, and therefore harmful for the people of Israel. This is one of the limitations every prophet labours under, as G’d explained to Moses in Exodus 33,20, כי לא יראני האדם וחי, i.e. that as long as the prophet’s soul is still within his mortal body, he cannot “see” i.e. completely understand what G’d is doing.
The difference between these two levels of “seeing,” is also the difference between כלל ופרט, “a general principle and its application to a specific situation.” [The 13 methods of exegesis of the Torah composed by Rabbi Yishmael, by means of which texts in the written Torah can be understood as halachically accepted. Ed.]
Our author explains this as the difference between “category 10 and not 11,” (Mishnah 4) a term used in the Sefer Yetzirah, the oldest kabbalistic text.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Kedushat Levi
Exodus 2,4. “his sister positioned herself at a distance, in order to find out what would be done with him.” This verse helps us understand Jeremiah 31,2 “the Lord appeared to me from a distance, etc.;”
There is a general rule that when the people in the physical universe are fully preoccupied with their secular concerns, they will not be able to elevate themselves to true service of the Lord. This idea is hinted at when the Bible uses the term מרחוק. [The term does not describe distance in terms of kilometers. Ed.] Rapprochement to the Creator progresses at the same speed as distancing oneself from purely secular concerns. The Torah chose to describe Miriam as אחתו, “his sister,” as it wished to allude to the word מאחה, meaning “attached,” i.e. מדובק. Miriam was anxious to see if the attribute of אין, the eternal element of G’d, would continue to influence the baby’s fate. On some occasions this attribute אין is also known as מה, the word used in our verse.
There is a general rule that when the people in the physical universe are fully preoccupied with their secular concerns, they will not be able to elevate themselves to true service of the Lord. This idea is hinted at when the Bible uses the term מרחוק. [The term does not describe distance in terms of kilometers. Ed.] Rapprochement to the Creator progresses at the same speed as distancing oneself from purely secular concerns. The Torah chose to describe Miriam as אחתו, “his sister,” as it wished to allude to the word מאחה, meaning “attached,” i.e. מדובק. Miriam was anxious to see if the attribute of אין, the eternal element of G’d, would continue to influence the baby’s fate. On some occasions this attribute אין is also known as מה, the word used in our verse.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy