The Angel of the Other (Parshat Vayishlach)

All real living is meeting.- Martin Buber

In last week’s parsha, Vayeitze Ya’akov left Be’er Sheva in the Holy Land and went north to Haran. The Sfas Emes points out that this symbolizes the soul leaving behind the well (be’er) of Shabbat (sheva) to go into the materiality of the world- from the place of p’nimiyut (internal spirit) to the place of gashmiyut (mundane concern). Now he is returning to the Holy Land and therefore to the place of p’nimiyut, which besides internality can also paradoxically mean the Face (panim). As we shall see Ya’akov will be tested on the way with a meeting with the face of the Other, the face of his brother Esav.
Ya’akov has sent messengers and gifts along before him to his estranged brother and sent his family along ahead of him. He has prepared for possible battle with him and the men that accompany him. Ya’akov will stay alone for the night.
“Vayivater Ya’akov levado- And Ya’akov was left alone (levado)”(Bereishit 32:25). The Midrash says, “Ya’akov was left alone (levado)”- this is like the aloneness of the Holy One who pervades all the universe (Bereishit Rabbah, 77:1)”. How is Ya’akov’s aloneness like the aloneness of Hashem?

The Holy One’s aloneness is described as ein od milvado -there is nothing besides Him alone (Devarim 4:35). On one level Ya’akov is in a place of great aloneness where he must rely on his own resources only (R’ Tzvi Elimelech of Dynov, Igre de-Kala, quoted by Rav Itamar Eldar). This is one way in which his aloneness is like the Holy One’s- it is an aloneness of self-sufficiency.

Further R’ Tzvi Elimelech and others connect this verse to another one from Yeshaya: “And human haughtiness will be humbled and people’s pride be brought low, YHWH alone ( levado) will be exalted on that day (Yashaya 2:17)” Here Ya’akov lets go of pride and self and is thus attains to an “aloneness with the alone”. Ya’akov’s aloneness is one where he comes into an unmediated meeting with the Divine presence, as taught by the Shem Mi-Shmuel (see Shem Mi-Shmuel Vayishlach 1878).  This last type of aloneness is a segregation- a hitbodedut- even from ideas of self and other, past and future. Ya’akov enters into a deep stillness where he transcends stories about himself and his brother. Ya’akov is alone, but not in the sense of isolation.

We see here that Ya’akov attains an aloneness of self-reliance, humility, divine presence, and seclusion from his usual way of looking at things, even to the extent of transcending ideas of himself and his brother. Lastly in this aloneness his consciousness becomes unrestricted, and it is in this sense that his awareness “pervades all the universe like the Holy One”.

It is from this ultimate place that the Other can be met completely, free from the cage of concepts based on the past. Here transformation of our attitude to the other can really occur, even if we only glimpse this state briefly. Without it, change tends to be more superficial.

V’ya’vak ish imo ad alot hashachar. The next thing that happens is that Ya’akov is met by a “man” (ish)- in my reading, his own personification of the Other, with which he wrestles ad alot hashachar- until the dawn (Bereishit 32:25). Ya’akov’s journey is not complete and he must integrate his experience. Ya’akov wrestles with the man triumphantly and the next day when he meets Esav he is greeted by Esav with a kiss. However first he bows to Esav sheva pa’amim- seven times (Bereishit 33:3). Seven symbolizes completion- Ya’akov bows completely.

Esav embraces Ya’akov and tells him Esav bears him no enmity any longer- a result the Rabbis explicitly connect to Ya’akov’s wrestling the night before with Esav’s guardian angel, or in our reading, with Ya’akov’s projection of Esav as threatening Other. And how telling in this respect is Ya’akov’s reponse to Esav “I have seen your face, which is like seeing the face of God”. Ya’akov’s statement reveals that in his aloneness his vision has been reborn, remade, and now he recognizes that the unmediated face of reality, the unmediated face of his brother Esav, is the face of God.

The meeting of Ya’akov and Esav has been understood as having been potentially messianic. If Esav had been ready for union with Ya’akov, the messianic age would have dawned. But Esav was not ready, and so Ya’akov does not go with him but sends him on ahead, promising to catch up with him in Se’ir. The lesson here is spiritual and ethical.

Ya’akov, after his healing glimpse of Esav beyond objectification, falls again into self protection. He does not go with Esav out of fear. He has not emerged from his wrestling with his personification of the Other completely whole after all- rather he walks with a limp. Jews do not eat the gid hanasheh, the sciatic nerve, of an animal in remembrance of Ya’akov’s injured hip. The mitzvah not to eat the gid hanasheh is a remembrance of the hope of reconciliation between self and other. One day we hope Ya’akov will be completely reconciled to Esav, beyond fear, guilt, and anger, and thus a space will open for Esav to be reconciled to Ya’akov. The pyche will be beyond “what I have done to him or her, what I am doing to him or her, what I might do to him or her” and of course “what he or she has done to me, what he or she are doing to me, what he or she might do to me”. Ya’akov and Esav will embrace eachother and travel together without fear. Until then perhaps Ya’akov is right to not travel with Esav- he senses not that Esav is not ready but that he himself is not ready.

By the end of the parsha we read “Ya’akov arrived whole – and he encamped before the city (of Shechem) (Bereishit 33:18).” And Esav? “And Esav took his wives, and his sons, and his daughters, and all the persons of his house, and his cattle, and all his beasts, and all his substance, which he had acquired in the land of Canaan; and went into another country away from his brother Yaakov (Bereishit 36:6).” The parsha then calls him “Esav, who is Edom (Bereishit 36:1).” He is now no longer identified with Avraham and his family; he is from now on identified as Edom. He has left the family and mission of Avraham. Even more ominously, Esav’s son Elifaz takes Timna, sister of a Horite chieftain, as a wife. Their son is Amalek, the archetypal anti-semite, ancestor of Haman of the Purim story (Bereishit 36:12)!

What would have happened if Ya’akov had gone with Esav and positively united their destinies? Yitzhak, certainly, did not desire Esav’s banishment from the family but rather favoured him.Traditional Jewish commentary has argued for Esav’s bad intentions at length: Esav was feining forgiveness, or his forgiveness was short-lived; Esav did not really kiss Ya’akov- he bit him. Is this protesting too much? Are we straining to cover for our own lack of love?

Chazal have said that reconciliation between Ya’akov and Esav will happen in the messianic future. Whoever is Israel, awake and struggling: let’s not wait for the future with whoever in our life is Esav. By letting go of our pride and our attempts to rely on others, and going into a place of aloneness, segregated even from our concepts of self and other, us and them, we can renew our eyes and see again the face of God in the face of the other. Everytime the face of the Other appears to us- by an act of grace beyond our imagining or conception- then the messianic age may dawn in that moment.

Parshat Vayeitze: Towards Haran


י. וַיֵּצֵא יַעֲקֹב מִבְּאֵר שָׁבַע וַיֵּלֶךְ חָרָנָה: So begins Parshat Vayietze. “And Ya’akov went out from Be’er Sheva towards Haran.” Rashi comments:

וילך חרנה: יצא ללכת לחרן:

Rashi is commenting on the end of the verse: “and he went towards Haran.” Rashi comments: He went specifically to Haran. In other words Ya’akov didn’t leave Be’er Sheva in a direction that just happened to be towards Haran: Ya’akov specifically intended to leave for Haran.

The Sfas Emes explains that Be’er Sheva represents Shabbat, the place of p’nimiyut (interiority, or spirit), and Haran represents the week, the place of gashmiyut (exteriority, materiality). We can see here a lesson about how to leave Shabbat: not mindlessly, not haphazardly, but with full awareness. This is the purpose, perhaps, of the Havdallah ritual. Why?

Shabbat is the place beyond the doing of the world. It is a healing immersion in reality, in the world created not as it is created by humans. When we leave behind the world of gashmiyut embodied in the affairs of the shavua (week) we are given a neshama yateira, an expanded soul. When we re-enter the shavua it should be as beings reborn and re-invigorated, ready to be “in the world but not of it.”

But this can only happen if we enter it mindfully and intentionally. In Chassidut it is said that we need to bring Shabbat into the Shavua. We need to bring the waters of be’er sheva into Haran.
But we cannot do this if we are blown back into gashmiyut like a leaf on the wind, with no firm intention, no awareness. We must not fool ourselves.

Bhagavan Das, an American born Hindu yogin once told me that it was only possible to live spiritually in the world after you had completely given it up. Otherwise you may only be fooling yourself. This is the spirit of entering Shabbat and then returning to the Shavua. Shabbat should serve as a weekly corrective, pulling us out of immersion in our own egoic and materialistic narratives and concerns.

The verse says, “Vayelech Haranah.” He went to Haran. In Hebrew “towards Haran” is written by adding a “heh” to Haran, something which is not neccessary in Rashi’s Hebrew. He writes “lalechet l’Haran” (in order to go towards Haran). Rashi’s comment thus draws our attention to the way the pasuk writes “towards Haran” by writing “Haran” with the addition of a “heh”. This mirrors the divine transformation of Avram into Avraham with a heh, and Sarai into Sarah again with a “heh”.
The “heh” here is the last “heh” of the Divine name, which represents Malchut, or the Shechinah immanent in the world. This gives us a clue as to how Ya’akov goes towards Haran, and maybe even “why”.

Ya’akov goes towards Haran understanding that it too is infused with the shechinah. But this also explains “why”. If Haran was not infused with the Shechinah, if gashmiyut was not a panim, a face, of God, then why would Ya’akov go there at all? He would stay in Be’er Sheva, ie. abandon mundane reality.

Rashi’s comment also illumines, as we said above, the pre-requisite for being able to use the things of this world for divine purposes. It must not only be lip service. It must be done intentionally and with full awareness.

journeys in the wilderness of judaism

It all started when I took over my wife’s position teaching Hebrew school on Sundays. In order to teach the kids the parsha I began studying it daily again like I used to in the morning while waking over coffee. Slowly it worked on my mind. The daily study drew me back into the mytho-poetic world of Torah, prodding me with ethical questions and moral demands, opening strange vistas of history.

Then there were the kiruv Rabbis and Rebbetzins. The liberal minded Litvak with the constant Shabbat and Torah class invitations. The warm hearted Chabad shliach with the promise of tefillin to replace my lost pair if I promised to don them and say the Sh’ma every morning. This probably sounds familiar to some of you. The pull of the tribe, the sweetness of communal life, the intellectual euphoria of Torah study, the satisfying grounding of meaning, purpose and place.

Yet as I began to wear tzitzit again and strategized to kasher my kitchen, as I read Heschel and the phenomenal world came alight with the promise that it hid and yet revealed an ineffable mystery, conflict grew.

Externally, oppositions between my own understanding of Jewish moral and spiritual commitments and the understanding of others came into relief. The bifurcation between the different world of an observant Jew and the gentile populace began to take shape. The open field of one universe with many equal peoples and people began to separate more into boundaries and positions. Should I attend a henotheistic or transpolytheistic Yoga  chanting event when Jews are covenanted to represent radical monotheism? I did attend but was uncomfortable and uncertain about being there. I attended a Zen retreat wearing my kippah and held aloof from the Buddhist services (I was greeted warmly and allowances were made).

Internally conflict took the shape of doubt. As I took up the yoke of halacha again I began to spend hours attempting to learn Jewish law with intellectual honesty so I could follow a halacha with integrity, not one of blind custom. Questions about Rabbinic authority, legal logic, textual integrity, swirled in my head in addition to the demands of daily life both sacred and mundane. They filed in like loud and earnest dinner guests newly arrived on an already crowded family dinner whose voices come to drown out the conversation of those already there.

I had been down this road before. I tried to be moderate and relaxed. I tried to take my time and allow for uncertainty, imperfection, slow growth. Unburdened by fundamentalist beliefs about the Torah and Talmud I felt fairly comfortable in a somewhat blurry mental landscape, where theological and legal commitments and beliefs were not completely clear.

What motivated me? Two things: one the list of qualities I mentioned above: sweetness, familiarity, intellectual euphoria, discipline, meaning, groundedness. Two I had found again, or maybe for the first time, a sense of God. Aided by my medical studies over the past two years my own innate sense of wonder had come to be coupled with an amazement at the ingenious designs of biology and botany. I was entertaining the real possibility that there is an awesome Creator whose gift of life infinitely obligates us to ethical ascension and service of others. This was quite a sea-change. Despite having a sense of God and divinity as a child, and an aborted attempt at becoming a ba’al teshuva (convert to orthodox Judaism) in my late 20’s, I have spent most of adult life as an atheist and much of my spiritual practice as a Buddhist.

Then it began to unravel. As I became more observant I also felt more tension in my marriage and in my daily life. The details were surface problems over the deep troubles.

The deep troubles are manifold. I accept in principle the idea of the Jewish tribe unified by a body of sacred law. I do not believe that Rabbinic law carries the weight of divine law. I am horrified by lives ruined by Rabbinic enactments- man made misery masquerading as casualties to a divine plan.

Deeper, I do not believe the Torah can be trusted as anything like a verbatim account of a revelation at Sinai, if such a thing occurred. The evidence strongly suggests that the Torah was compiled by scribes over the course of centuries. The scribes must have redacted texts based on oral traditions, traditions that were themselves probably manifold, varying by region and elaborated and filtered by the elders and teachers who preserved it. The texts themselves, once written down, were further expanded, edited, and spliced together. Although the Torah as a whole records a grand spiritual and moral vision it cannot be trusted on the details: details that Orthodox Jews run their lives by. I cannot order my life and certainly cannot abrogate my conscience or reason in any way on the basis of legal details grounded in such nebulous claims to divine authority.

Deeper, who knows what really happened in the depths of Israelite history? The story of the Jewish people is awesome strange and the vision of the Torah singular and sublime in its context. But I cannot ground my life commitments in soil where I am, in the honest depths of my soul, agnostic. There are noble and transformative spiritual practices which do not require such existential and intellectual risks of delusion and dishonesty.

What was the spiritual core of my attraction to Judaism? It was my awe at the fact that anything exists at all. Add to that the order of nature and Jewish claims of “ethical monotheism” begin to seem compelling. But nature, as well as beautiful and ordered, is also brutal and heartless. Human suffering seems infinite and dreams of spiritual justification for earthly tragedy remain just that- dreams. Theists claim that God counts every strand of hair and numbers every  fallen sparrow. Does he also number the hours of a child locked in a dryer machine while its parents go to the bar? Does he count the African women raped and mutilated in the hundreds of thousands? Does he mark their screams while being vaginally penetrated by knives before having their throats cut? Does he record the heartbeats of the chronically depressed or the long hours of dark anxiety in schizophrenic brains?

To move beyond suffering mediated by human illness and evil, did the Creator really find it wise to have wasps hatch their larvae in the bodies of living caterpillars or predators eat their prey alive? For that matter, why design a universe where animals survive by eating each other? Who thought up that macabre idea?

I would not argue for a moment that these questions disprove God’s existence. They do, however, remove the ground for easy faith. Ultimately, with their menacing faces before me, I cannot ground my life’s rhythms and reasons on monotheism. Life is an amazing gift, even with its suffering. Wonder, obligation, and compassion seem real and true, maybe the most true things. Beyond that I cannot go.

What then is my current relationship to Judaism?

Well, I do love it despite its real flaws. Many of its intuitions move me. I feel a part of the community and I enjoy that belonging and celebrate what I think is wise and good in our heritage as I think all communities should. I respect our customs. I want to preserve our wisdom and be an informed critic of our mistakes.

In some ways the stance I’m articulating here is disappointingly boring. I am re-joining the hordes of agnostic, unaffiliated Jews again. I have never wanted to be boring, but my conscience does not permit me to make the bolder and more interesting choice of joining the ranks of ba’alei teshuvah. Perhaps time will reveal the truth. Perhaps it won’t. How do we live in such a universe? That is the question.

Parshat Kodshim: The Holiness of Heterosexuality?

“And YHWH spoke to Moshe, saying, “Speak to all the gathering of the children of Israel, and you shall say to them: You shall be holy, because I, YHWH, your God, am holy (Vayikra 19:1).”

So opens the the recently passed parsha Kodshim.  This sentence, with its stark and challenging grandeur, is a favorite amongst Jews of all denominations. What is it to be Holy, Kadosh? The parsha does not offer definitions. Instead it offers a long list of examples: the Ten Commandments, ritual offerings to God, justice, caring for the poor and the infirm, treatment of women, food, the illegality of sorcery, and loving both one’s neighbour and the stranger as oneself.

All of these examples have led many to see holiness as laying in following the mitzvot in general and more specifically the ethical mitzvot which predominate here. In fact the mitzvot listed in this parsha fall into both the categories of bein adam l’havero (between one another) and bein adam l’makom (between people and God) and so we can infer a definition of holiness from this: right relationship with other human beings and with God. The mitzvot listed suggest one’s relationship with others should be one of justice, honour and kindness. One’s relationship with God should be ritualized and disciplined and should involve binding oneself through ritual and custom to God alone. It should also involve not taking life without offering it back to its source in a sacred way, as in the Temple sacrifice ritual. Incidentally one could argue that this extends the mitzvot here to a third category: bein adam l’hayyot (between humans and animals).

All of this seems interesting and edifying until we get to Vayikra 20:13: “And a man who will lie with with a male like laying with a woman: the two of them have done an offensive thing. They shall be put to death.”

How is “laying with a man like laying with a woman” fatally unholy?

It comes here as part of a recap of some sexual laws from the previous parsha (Vayikra 18:22). Together these two parshas outline a number of forbidden sexual relationships, most of them easy to understand. All of them are physically (genetically) or emotionally dangerous. Anthropologists tell us that there are semitic tribes that to this day do not have incest taboos, so apparently these laws were indeed necessary. Also there was the Egyptian custom of sibling marriage and anthropologists claim that some tribes in Canaan practiced ritual homosexuality, and that in at least some cases this involved male on male anal rape.

One possibility thus presents itself: these laws were partially intended to differentiate the Israelites from their neighbours. Rabbi Gershon Winkler has argued that these laws were intended to outlaw homosexual rape specifically because it was widely practiced in Canaanite temples.

This is possible, but doesn’t seem that strong an explanation. It does seem reasonable that the phrase “laying with a man like a woman” does refer to anal sex. This is the interpretation that Conservative Jews have adopted and they have ruled that homosexual romance and marriage are permissible but not anal sex between men.

The difficulty is: since Israelites didn’t practice temple prostitution or sacred orgies, why did this one aspect of Canaanite Temple practice need to be discouraged?

Rabbi Steven Greenberg has suggested that the problem is not anal sex but the use of other men not for their own sake but as a mere replacement for a woman. In his reading one should lay with a man like one is laying with a man, not like one is laying with a woman. This is a good drash, but seems unlikely as pshat (the literal reading) to me.

Richard Elliott Friedman has suggested that homosexual anal sex is outlawed here not because it is offensive to God but because it is offensive to Israelites. The verse says, “Do not do X. It is an offensive thing.” Friedman suggests that the Torah is in effect saying “Do not have homosexual intercourse. It is something people generally find offensive and you are trying to be a refined, disciplined, holy people. Therefore abandon it.”

This reading is somewhat plausible. It seems to follow, intentionally or not, a Maimonidean reading of the text. In Moreh Nevuchim Maimonides says that many of the mitzvot were given simply to refine people: he includes in this list the laws of kashrut and the laws of purity. Maimonides also views a major part of Jewish law as a concession to human perceptions: the laws of Temple sacrifice. Maimonides writes that if Israelites hadn’t been conditioned to need to make sacrifices by the religions of their neighbours, God wouldn’t have instituted the sacrificial laws. Maimonides argues that the sacrificial laws were given not to encourage people to make sacrifices, but rather with an eye to weaning them from the practice altogether.

This is in harmony with Friedman’s view that since homosexual intercourse is no longer viewed as an “offensive thing” we can now abandon this law.

I find Friedman’s argument appealing but am ultimately unconvinced. Homosexual intercourse was punishable with death: this seems quite a severe punishment for the sake of promoting a sense of refinement of character based on Israelite biases. The severity of the law seems to reflect both an awareness that homosexual intercourse was appealing enough to some to warrant strong deterrence, and a passionate concern on the part of someone to prevent its occurrence.

One other possibility is that homosexual intercourse was outlawed because it was perceived as against the way of nature. The Tanakh is filled with praise for the divine wisdom inherent in nature. Some of the laws, like those limiting breeding hybrid crops or mixing certain types of fabric, seem to reflect this. Another key law with respect to this is found in the verse which outlaws men and women adopting each other’s dress. This seems a clear example of a law attempting to preserve what are perceivable as natural boundaries. Perhaps this desire to respect natural boundaries grew out of the Israelite perception, unique in the ancient middle east, of the whole world being an expression of the wisdom of one benevolent God.

This presents two problems for us today. The first problem is that we now know that homosexual desires are not a perverse inclination of the human heart but a natural inclination grounded in genetic predisposition. We also know that it is impossible for homosexual men to be “cured” of their desires. The evidence suggest that homosexual desire is in fact natural. This seems to conflict with the rationale we perceived above.

If we agree that homosexual behaviour is natural than we might be tempted to conclude, with the Conservative movement, that homosexual romance that excludes anal intercourse is kosher. I myself am empathetic to this view. I am neither a posek (obviously!) or a homosexual, and I feel that the combination of both attributes would be ideal in judging this matter. Nevertheless, for what it’s worth, I think this seems a fairly equitable resolution of the conundrum for those committed to some form of traditional Jewish law. It preserves the halacha d’oraita (written law).

This still does not resolve our problems, however. Even if we do conclude that homosexual romance is permissible but not anal sex , how do we understand its being a capital offence? This capital offence is no more disturbing, however, then the death penalty for Shabbat violation.  However uncomfortable it makes us the Torah threatens death for many offences we would not even consider criminal today, there is no escaping that it does.

On a practical level we know that the Talmudic Rabbis legislated exhaustive restrictions on the application of the death penalty which made it impossible to actually implement. Still, the question of why the Torah mandates such harsh punishment for breaking laws that seem comparatively minor remains.

Another difficulty is that understanding the ban as only extending to anal sex is not an option open to Orthodox Jews. For Orthodox Jews the only options are to abstain from homosexual romance entirely or to engage in some degree of homo-erotic love, thus violating what they consider to be Torah law, while otherwise observing the rest of the mitzvot.

Thankfully no-one is able to enforce the Bibilical death penalty anymore. With regards to the option of engaging in homosexual intercourse whilst otherwise being observant I am reminded of the words of orthodox Rabbi Simon Rappaport. He pointed out that to fail to observe this mitzvah is no worse than failing to observe any other. To judge those born with desire for other men, or to (has v’shalom) publicly condemn or persecute them, is as unacceptable as publicly shaming and assaulting those who talk during prayer or drive on shabbat. Sadly some fundamentalist thugs might advocate doing that these days, but it is clearly against traditional Jewish law.

Seeing The Aniconic God: An Exploration of YHVH’s Appearances in The Tanakh

And they heard the sound of YHWH moving about in the garden at the breezy time of day…”

Bereishit 3:8

That the holy one, blessed be He, is not a physical body, is explicitly set forth in the Pentateuch and the Prophets.”

-Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Yesod Ha Da’at 1:8


Despite Maimonides’ assertion above, The Tanakh1does not shy away from representing G-d as appearing in some kind of form. G-d walks in the garden, sews clothing for Adam and Chava, and even seems to appear as a mal’akh, a human-like apparition, to Avraham , Ya’akov, and others. G-d also appears in a more abstract but no less intense form in the three middle books of the Chumash2, as a burning bush, a pillar of cloud or flame, a “cloud of glory”, a shofar blast, and as disturbances, seemingly of the fabric of reality itself. In Yeshayahu (Isaiah) and Yehezkel (Ezekiel) G-d is pictured as an awesome, surreal presence which although humanoid, seems to dance just at the edges of being confined to form. Perhaps, as some have argued3, this is because for ancient Israel G-d was an entity who once confined to specific form could no longer be experienced the way Israelites experienced their God. Aniconism- a ban on fixed images of G-d– is at the very heart of Israelite religion, as distinct from surrounding cultures.

In the following pages we will explore G-d’s appearances, by which I mean His experienced or conceptualized presence or manifestation in the physical world, in the Tanakh, and what we can learn from this about Israelite religion. There are three aspects to appearance- form, location, and physicality (or lack thereof). We will explore all three with regard to YHWH. We will discuss the texts we examine from a historical-critical point of view but focus predominantly on a conceptual, literary exploration of the text. We will then reflect on the possible theological implications of our journey.

Among The Fathers and Mothers

Ya’akov was left alone; and a man wrestled with him until daybreak. When the man saw that he did not prevail against Ya’akov, he struck him on the hip socket; and Ya’akov’s hip was put out of joint as he wrestled with him. Then he said, “Let me go, for the day is breaking.” But Ya’akov said “I will not let you go, unless you bless me.” So he said to him, “What is your name?” And he said, “Ya’akov.” Then the man said, “You shall no longer be called Ya’akov, but Israel. For you have struggled with God and with humans and prevailed.” Then Ya’akov asked him, “What is your name? But he said, “Why is it that you ask my name?” And there he blessed him. So Ya’akov called the place Peniel, saying, “For I have seen God face to face, and yet my life is preserved.” (Ber 32:25-31)

In this famous passage the identitiy of the “man” Ya’akov struggles with is mysterious. Tradition views him as a mal’akh – an “angel, or more literally, a “messenger” of God. Most translations reflect this, attempting to present him as such4. A literal translation suggests that the “man” Ya’akov struggles with is in fact God. Why else would Ya’kov celebrate his survival after seeing God “face to face”, unless he had in fact seen Him, not merely a representative? In another mysterious text, Ya’akov’s father Avraham has a meeting with not one mal’akh, but three. Again the text is ambiguous.

YHWH5 appeared to him (Avraham) by the oaks of Mamre; as he sat at the entrance of his tent in the heat of the day. He looked up and saw three men standing near him. When he saw them, he ran from the tent entrance to meet them, and bowed down to the ground. He said, “My lords6, if I find favour with you, do not pass by your servant. Let a little water be brought and wash your feet and rest yourselves under the tree. Let me bring a little bread that you may refresh yourselves, and after that you may pass on- since you have come to your servant.” So they said, “Do as you have said.” And Abraham hastened into the tent to Sarah, and said, “Make ready quickly three measures of choice flour, knead it, and make cakes.” Abraham ran to the herd, and took a calf, tender and good, and gave it to the servant, who hastened to prepare it. Then he took curds and milk and the calf that he had prepared, and set it before them; and he stood by them under the tree while they ate.

They said to him, “Where is your wife Sarah?” And he said, There in the tent.” And He said7, I will surely return to you in due season, and your wife Sarah shall have a son.” And Sarah was listening at the tent entrance behind him. Now Abraham and Sarah were old, advanced in age; it had ceased to be with Sarah after the manner of women. So Sarah laughed to herself, saying, After I have grown old, and my husband is old, shall I have pleasure?” The LORD said to Avraham, Why did Sarah laugh, and say, ‘Shall I indeed bear a child, now that I am old?’ Is anything too wonderful for the LORD? At the set time I will return to you, in due season, and Sarah shall have a child.”

Who are the three men in this passage? Traditionally they are viewed as mal’akhim, angels, or more literally, “messengers” of God. The literal meaning of mal’akh is a messenger, one who is sent. What seems to be described is a meeting between a human being and three mal’akhim.

The odd thing about the passage is the way the three mal’akhim seem to fade into YHWH, and then back into three mal’akhim again. As James L. Kugel has pointed out8, the existential distinction between the mal’akhim and YHVH seems blurred. This is further shown by a passage a little later in the story, when Avraham accompanies the three men on their way, and YHWH is said to be contemplating whether to share with Avraham his plans for Sodom and Amorrah. He then apparently decides to find out if things there as bad as the cries of distress issuing from it indicate. In Friedman’s translation9:

And YHWH said, “The cry of Sodom and Amorrah: how great it is. And their sin: how very heavy it is. Let me go down, and I’ll see if they’ve done, all told, like the cry that has come to me. And if not, let me know.” And the people turned from there and went to Sodom.10 And Avraham was still standing before YHWH, and Avraham came over and said… (Ber 18:20-23)

It seems here like both the speaker, YHWH, and the three men, are the same “person”. The mal’akh, singular or plural, do not appear to be a distinct, stable being sent as a representative of YHWH, but rather an appearance of YHWH Himself. Amazingly YHWH as mal’akh appears to be able to be in two places at once (“Let me go downAnd the people turned from there and wentand Avraham was still standing before YHWH…). Nevertheless, the physicality of the mal’akhim is noteworthy. In the Ya’akov text the mal’akh physically wrestles with Ya’akov; in the Avraham narrative Avraham obviously has no idea of the divine nature of his visitors at first, and they even eat in his presence11.

Later in the narrative, and perhaps composition, time of the Torah, the mal’akhim appear to be increasingly replaced by less anthropomorphic manifestations of YHWH.

Fire and Cloud

The first divine appearance in Shemot12 (SH) is a “mal’akh of YHWH in a fire’s flame from inside a bush.” As the text tells us, “And he (Mosheh) looked, and here: the bush was burning in the fire, and the bush was not consumed!” (SH 3:2) The text further says, “And YHWH saw that he (Mosheh) turned to see. And G-d called to him from inside the bush, and He said, “Mosheh, Mosheh.”(SH 3:4) Here is an important difference from the earlier narratives. The mal’akh of YHWH, which again is not entirely made distinct from YHWH, is never described as a man. The text only mentions the supernatural flame and the voice. This suggests that mal’akh may indeed be considered to be an appearance, or manifestation, of YHWH, as opposed to an entity with any degree of existential independence.

For most of the rest of Shemot, YHWH appears as a guiding and commanding voice to Mosheh. On their way out of Egypt, however he appears in a more abstract although still physical form: “And YHWH was going in front of them by day in a column of cloud to show them the way, and by night in a column of fire to shed light for them…”(SH 13:21) Later on, at Horev/Sinai, YHWH appears as “a mass of cloud” (SH 19:9), then as “thunder and lightning and a heavy cloud on the mountain, and a sound of a horn, very strong….and Mount Sinai was all smoke because YHWH came down on it in fire, and its smoke went up like the smoke of a furnace, and the whole mountain trembled greatly. And the sound of the horn was getting much stronger….”(SH 19:16-19) After YHWH speaks to the people, he says to Mosheh, “ You shall say this to the children of Israel: You have seen that I have spoken with you from the skies…”(SH 20:22)

Later Mosheh is commanded to come up the mountain with Nadav, Avihu, Aharon, and seventy of Israel’s elders. They go up, and: “They saw the God of Israel. And below His feet it was like a structure of sapphire brick and like the essence of the skies for clarity. And He did not put out His hand to the chiefs of the children of Israel. And they envisioned God. And they ate and drank.” (SH 24:9-11) The passage is striking both for its loftiness and vagueness relative to the earlier passages, and for how that loftiness is mixed with the reference to “His feet”!13 We see a new type of appearance here, what seems to be a majestic, personal vision of YHWH. This foreshadows in some respects the way YHWH appears in the Prophets.

Enclosed Fire

In the year that King Uzziyah died I saw YHWH, sitting on a throne, high and lofty, and the hem of his robe filled the temple. Seraphim were in attendance above Him; each had six wings; with two they covered their faces, and with two they covered their feet, and with two they flew. And one called to another and said, “Holy, Holy, Holy, is YHWH Tzevakot; the whole world is full of His glory.” The pivots on the thresholds shook at the voices of those who called, and the house filled with smoke. (Yeshayahu 6:1-4)

Here we have a later text, from Nevi’im (Prophets) which scholars identify with the original prophet of the Yeshayahu school of prophets who spanned 738 BCE to 515 BCE14. King Uzziyah dies in 738 BCE, the year Yeshayahu started prophesying according to the above text. This text suggests two interesting things about the Prophet’s understanding of God. The first is the return here to a physical image- even to visible clothing! The figure is not clearly defined though, and we can assume not clearly seen either, or else Yeshayahu would supply more detail15. The mysterious figure is seated on a throne and wearing a robe. Seraphim, traditionally understood to be angels of fire, are in attendance. The Seraphim call to each other, “Holy, Holy, Holy! Is YHWH of Hosts, the whole world is full of His glory!” This last is interesting. The “glory” of YHWH is understood (SH) to be some kind of ethereal radiance or cloud that surrounds Him. His glory, significantly, both reveals and conceals.16The glory is paradigmatic of all appearances of YHWH. His appearances are inconsistent, unstable, ambiguous, a form yet not a true or essential form17.

Yehezkel’s vision is even more stunning:

In the thirtieth year, in the fourth month, on the fifth day of the month, as I was among the exiles by the river Chevar, the heavens were opened, and I saw visions of God Elohim. On the fifth day of the month (it was the fifth year of the exile of King Yehoyakin) the word of YHWH came to the priest Yehezkel son of Buzi, in the land of the Chaldeans by the river Chevar; and the hand of YHWH was on him there.

As I looked, a stormy wind came out of the north: a great cloud with brightness around it and fire flashing forth continuously, and in the middle of the fire, something like gleaming amber. In the middle of it was something like four living creatures. This was their appearance: they were of human form. Each had four faces, and each of them had four wings….Over the heads of the living creatures there was something like a dome, shining like crystal, spread out above their heads…And above the dome over their heads there was something like a throne, in appearance like sapphire; and seated above the likeness of the throne was something that seemed like a human form. Upward from what appeared like the loins I saw something like gleaming amber, something that looked like fire enclosed all around; and downward from what looked like the loins I saw something that looked like fire, and there was a splendour all around. Like the bow in a cloud on a rainy day, such was the appearance of the splendour all around. This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of YHWH. When I saw it, I fell on my face and I heard the voice of someone speaking. (Yehezkel 1:1-6; 22, 26-28)

This passage has a number of interesting features. The vision of YHWH occurs outside of Israel, “among the community of exiles”. As in Yeshayahu, it seems more un-worldly.18 It is magisterial and awe-inspiring. The surreal “hayyot”, a type of ministering “angel”, whose appearance is more fully elaborated in the unquoted section of the passage, appear clearly distinct from YHWH. The text seems to be suggesting that YHWH himself is being seen, as in Shemot, even if it is only an “appearance of the likeness of the glory of YHWH.”19 YHWH does have some degree of corporeality, but just barely. He is “enclosed fire” “gleaming amber” “radiance”, which appeared “like” a human form.

In this passage then, YHWH appears from the heavens, not on earth, in a magisterial form. Importantly Yehezkel (or his editor) is at pains to stress that this seemingly full theophany by Biblical standards is not as full as it seems- it is merely a manifestation of an approximation of a self-emanation of YHWH.


We have traced the appearances of YHWH throughout the Tanakh. In the Avraham and Ya’akov narratives we saw YHWH manifesting as mal’akhim– a human seeming man or men who turn out to be appearances of YHWH. We saw how Israelites considered a run-in with the mal’akhim to be tantamount to an encounter with YHWH Himself. We saw how although the mal’akhim narratives depict YHWH as possessing physicality, it is not simple physicality. If YHWH possesses a body it can having three bodies at once, or two in one place while one is in another. We noted the way the Mal’akhim and YHWH seem interchangeable, fading into one another. We argue that this suggests that the mal’akhim were not seen as independent beings at this point in Israelite thought.

We explored how in Shemot YHWH appears as a flame, a pillar of cloud or flame, a cloud of glory, or a magisterial and lofty , but not clearly defined, figure. We noted how the flame appearance is referred to as a mal’akh, supporting the idea that the fundamental idea of a mal’akh is an emanation of YHWH, not what we normally understand of as an angel. The text in Shemot does not clearly differentiate between the flame mal’akh and YHWH, supporting our argument. Finally we explored how YHWH appears in the Prophets as a surreal, overwhelming, and magisterial presence in the Heavens flanked by surreal ministering creatures, the seraphim, chayyot and ophanot.

Can we explain these different manifestations of YHWH in the texts? Why does YHWH appear in such different ways? What does it tell us about Israelite religion and its development?


Can source criticism explain these texts? Perhaps the composition time of these texts can shed some light on their meaning. When the texts we quoted from Bereishit and Shemot were written is a matter of considerable controversy. Richard Eliott Friedman, a leading proponent of the Documentary Hypothesis20, places these texts in the source documents J and E, composed between 922 BCE and 722 BCE and combined by a redactor, RJE, shortly after the reunification of Judah and Israel in 722 BCE. A competing theory is put forward by John Van Seters, a proponent of the New Supplementary Hypothesis.21He also assigns them to J, but in his scheme this is the last, post-exilic stage (after 527 BCE) in the supplementation of a document that became the Torah.

One who follows Friedman’s timeline is free to suggest that the malakh’im narratives belong to the earlier J source. This fits with his assignment of the flame mal’akh in SH 3:2-3 to J22. The appearances of YHWH in Shemot as a mass of cloud, on the mountain as fire and smoke, and as a voice from the skies Friedman assigns to E, a source contemporaneous to J but generally viewed as more disposed to abstraction. Not all abstract, non-anthropomorphic appearances are assigned to E, however. The pillar of cloud or fire that leads the Israelites is assigned to J, putting a hole in the hypothesis that appearances though abstract supernatural phenomena are a trademark of E and mal’akhim a trademark of J23. If we follow Van Seters we have more problems, since if the mal’akhim in Bereishit and Shemot are contemporaneous to, or later, then, the Prophets, then the differences are not explained. It seems like we will have to rely on literary explanations. They are readily available.

In the Avraham and Ya’akov narratives it is imperative to the storyline that they not know who the mal’akhim are at first. Both appear to be tests. The Avraham narrative is a test of generosity and hospitality, the Ya’akov narrative a test of endurance and will. Obviously Avraham would not offer hospitality to YHWH, nor would Ya’akov wrestle with Him. In the Moshe narrative in Shemot what is key is that Mosheh be drawn to Horev, the sacred mountain, and know that YHWH is speaking to him, as demonstrated by the miracle of the bush that burns and is not consumed. There would be no point in the mal’akh appearing in human form. In the other Shemot narrative featuring fire, smoke, pillars of cloud and flame, etc, what is true is the opposite of what is true in Bereishit. The Israelites must know that it is YHWH that is leading them. The subterfuge of appearing in human form would not only be unnecessary, but damaging to the aniconic nature of Israelite religion. In the theophany to the 70 elders, Aharon, Nadav and Avihu, YHWH appears in the form of a King sealing a covenant. That is why the representatives of the people come in to His presence and symbolically break bread with Him, although it is unclear how direct a vision they have of Him, and I would argue not very. Finally, in the Prophetic narratives the majesty of YHWH’s appearance is predicated by the need to strongly inspire and strengthen the Prophets for their incredibly difficult and long term tasks, as well as to give them legitimacy in the eyes of the people. This is particularly true of Yehezkel, who was prophesying among the shattered community of exiles. By the time of Yeshayahu the image of YHWH as true King of Israel is well established. Yeshayahu’s vision may stress that “the true King”, ensconced in the Temple, is calling him to address his sinful representatives, the Kings of Judah, on earth.

The key connecting thread which shows conceptual continuity, not discontinuity, in these narratives, is their connection to the aniconic spirituality of ancient Israel. In none of the narratives does YHWH appear in a definitive or essential form. The essential features of God’s physicality throughout the Tanakh are that it can not be pinned down and that it is dangerous to behold. These features are consistent with the aniconic nature of Israelite religion, with its taboos on concrete or definite representation of the Deity. The descriptions of YHWH in the text are easily seen as consistent throughout the Tanakh- YHWH is a God who appears as mal’akhim, in strange natural phenomena, and in majestic, surreal visions. No texts depict him as having a certain physical form like Krishna, Zeus, or Marduk24. Only in surreal, arbitrary, or symbolic forms can an aniconic God be seen.


Another aspect of physicality besides form is location. In the early texts YHWH’s appearances are on earth. In Shemot they are on earth and on the higher earth, i.e. Horev/Sinai. In the Prophets the appearances are in the Temple and in the Heavens. There seems to be a general movement here from earth to the threshold between heaven and earth- Sinai or the Temple and then to the Heavens entirely in Ezekiel.

This makes sense. In Bereishit YHWH appears anywhere, as he is yet to create His “headquarters” in Jerusalem as it were. In Shemot, YHWH appears first at the base of Horev to Moshe, and then on earth leading Israel to Horev. Once at Horev He appears at its summit, as befits a God whose home, like all Gods, is of course in the Heavens. After Horev YHWH appears in the Mishkan, the wilderness temple, and then eventually in Jerusalem at the Temple proper. This becomes the new threshold of Heaven and Earth for Israel. After the exile His appearance to Yehezkel follows this same logic. The Temple is destroyed, so He appears directly from the Heavens.


We can sum up the way YHWH appears in the Tanakh as follows: YHWH appears either on earth or in the heavens, in forms which match the rhetorical intent of the context. Consistent with the fierce Aniconism of Israelite religion his appearances are never completely described- His appearances dance on the edge of form, unstable, indefinite, semblances and emanations, never an essential or definitive image. The physicality of YHWH is never denied in the Tanakh, however. While it is true that in the Prophets, or in Melachim (M 22:19) He appears in the Heavens, in Biblical thought the heavens are part of the created world- physical. The denial of physicality to YHWH seems to have arisen out of the contact of Judaism with Hellenistic thought. This can be seen at its most stringent in Maimonides, the master reconciler of Torah and Aristotle, who made the non-corporeality of God one of his 13 cardinal principles of Jewish Thought, the denial of which made one a heretic25.

Behind this discussion there is a lurking question. Do the changing appearances of YHWH reflect only narrative elements, or do they also reflect changing understandings of His nature? On a superficial analysis, some might conclude that the movements from more to less anthropomorphic, and from earth based to heaven based appearances, represents a transition to a more universal, and more powerful deity. The texts do not support this view. This is a much debated question. I argue that within the Chumash itself there are many references throughout which suggest that YHWH was understood as the Creator God who ruled the universe, and all peoples ( B 1-11 in its entirety, all alleged J, E, and P sources; B 14:19-22, 18, 21:33, B 41:1-36, SH 19:5; and many references in Devarim. The many references in Devarim are explained by the doctrinal emphasis of that book.)

Final Thoughts: Is their a contradiction between the conception of YHWH in the Tanakh and the omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient God of later Judaism?

In the Talmud and Midrash, texts which were formed between 300 BCE and 500 CE, after the Jews absorbed a strong dose of Hellenistic thought, God appears both as corporeal and as the formless omnipresent. In many texts the anthropomorphisms are outright shocking. God is said to wear tefillin26 (Ber 6a) and to wrap Himself in a talit27 (RH 17b); to pray to Himself and to study the Torah three hours a day (AZ 3b). He weeps over his creatures sins (Chag 5b), plaits Chavah’s hair before her wedding (Ber 61a) and buries Moses (Gen R 8.13). Despite this, He is said to fill the whole world as the soul fills the body (Ber 10a) and to not possess simple location (Midrash to Psalm 25. 5; 103a). In fact, it is said, “The Holy One, Blessed be He, is the place of his universe, but the universe is not His place (Gen R.LXViii.9).” Despite that, it is also affirmed that the Holy One lives in a transcendent heaven a distance of 3,500 years away (Midrash to Psalm ciii.i;217a). These different depictions seem to have different purposes- some are poetic, some pedagogical- for instance describing God as doing good deeds to encourage imitatio dei (see Exodus Rabbah 30.9). Some seem to be earnest attempts at cosmology, some ontological. Nevertheless they demonstrate the ability of the human text and the human mind to hold seemingly contradictory beliefs. The world of early Israel is not the sophisticated ultra-literate culture of the Pharisees. The texts of the Bible represent understandings more then doctrines, but the same ability to hold contradictory concepts applies in terms of understandings, as most moderns who enjoy watching the sun rise over the horizon, as opposed to the earth rising over the sun, can attest.

A full discussion of whether YHWH is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient in the Tanakh or not is beyond the scope of this essay. Scholars have argued both sides of the debate well. We will limit this closing piece to arguing that the facts we have discussed in this essay do not make render impossible the viewing of the YHWH of the Tanakh as omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipresent.

Theologically, it seems to me, these problems are not hard to resolve. Rabbeinu Bachya, the great medieval Rabbi, said, “Had they (the Prophets) described God in strictly spiritual terms and concepts, we would have understood neither the terms nor the concepts; and it would have been impossible for us to worship a being Whom we did not know…”28 It’s not hard to apply this insight from the world of language to the world of experience. If God has no form, then how would he have appeared to ancient Israelites in such a way as to be apprehended and understood by them without causing a nervous breakdown at worst or mere incomprehension at best? R’ Bachya here is speaking in terms of the writings of the Prophets, but what he says may also apply to the direct experience of God. What would have been the effect if God appeared in such a way that in the process He disrupted the entire conceptual worldview of the poor victim of his theophany? Has this, in fact, ever happened? Has any pre-modern mystic come back from an experience of God explaining quantum physics? An experience of God in line with later developments in human thought are similarly unlikely29. Of course, these matters can all be given a secular, psychological explanation as well. My point here is just that they do not pose insurmountable theological problems for those who read the Bible through the eyes of faith. As far as philosophical scruples about the absolute unity or infinitude of God, R’ Shneur Zalman of Liadi, the first Lubavitcher Rebbe, said it well in his Tanya30 when he explained that a truly infinite being would not be limited by their infinitude. That would, in fact, render them finite!


_Benamozegh, Elijah. Israel and Humanity. Paulist Press, New York, 1995.

_Ben Joseph Ibn Paquda, R’ Bachya. Chovat Ha-Levavot (The Duties of The Heart). Feldheim. New York, 1996.

_Brettler, Marc Zvi. How To Read the Bible. Philadelphia, PA. The Jewish Publication Society 2005.

_Cassuto, Umberto. The Documentary Hypothesis and The Composition of The Pentateuch. Jerusalem, Shalem Press, 2006.

_Cohen, Abraham . Everyman’s Talmud. New York, Shocken, 1975.

_Frick, Frank s. “The Land of The Hebrew Bible.” A Journey Through the Hebrew Scriptures. Forth Worth, TX: Harcour Brace, 2000.

_Friedman, Richard Elliott. The Bible With Sources Revealed. New York, Harper Collins 2003.

_Heschel, Abraham Joshua. “The Biblical View of Reality”. Moral Grandeur and Spiritual Audacity. New York, 1996.

_The HarperCollins Study Bible: New Revised Standard Version with the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books. New York, Harper Collins 1993.

_JPS Hebrew-English Tanakh, Philadelphia, Jewish Publication Society 2003/5764.

_The Keter Crown Bible. Jerusalem, Horev Publishing House, 2004.

_Kugel, James L. The God of Old. New York, The Free Press 2003.

_Mackenzie, Steven L; Graham, Patrick M. ed., The Hebrew Bible Today: An Introduction to Critical Issues. Westminster John Knox Press. Louisville, 1998.

_Wilber, Ken. A Brief History of Everything. Shambhala Publications, Boston 2000.

_Zalman of Liadi, Rabbi Schneur. Likkutei Amarim: Tanya; Bilingual Edition. Kehot Publication Society, New York 1998.

1 Throughout this essay I will use the traditional Jewish names for the Hebrew Bible and its characters. This includes the unvowelized YHWH for God’s Name. ‘Tanakh’is a traditional acronym for Torah, Nevi’im, Ketuvim, or Teaching, Prophets, and Writings

2 The Jewish name for the Pentateuch, literally “5”.

3 Kugel, James L. The God of Old. New York, The Free Press 2003.

4 See JPS translation: “you have striven with beings divine and human” (32:29); “I have seen a divine being face to face, yet my life was preserved” (32:31). This depart from the literal meaning, however. See Kugel p. 28-30.

5 Taken from the HarperCollins Study Bible New Standard Revised Edition. I’ve modified the proper names to transliterated Hebrew, and altered the translation on other parts where indicated.

6 I have modified the translation here to be more literal.

7 Here again, following Friedman and Kugel.

8 Kugel, James L. The God of Old. New York, The Free Press 2003.

9 Friedman, Richard Elliott. The Bible With Sources Revealed. New York, Harper Collins 2003.

10 Ibid.

11 It’s interesting to note that the mal’akh who visits Manoah in Shofetim does not eat.

12 All quotations from Shemot RE Friedman.

13 References to the mouth, hand, arm, etc of YHWH abound in the Tanakh, but are usually metaphors. Here the “feet” are clearly physical objects. Note also that they only survive the theophanydue to YHWH’s grace.


15 Note the Midrash to Shemot 15:2, “This is my God”, which asserts that all of Israel saw G-d at Sinai more clearly even the Ezekiel, so that they could point and say, ‘This is my G-d.’ Ezekiah’s vision, below, seems even clearer than Yeshayahu’s. Midrash quoted in Kugel, p.102.

16 The word “glory” (cavod) sometimes translated “Presence” was used by Onkelos, the early translator of the Torah into Aramaic, to deal with anthropomorphic language. He translated Bereishit 28:13, “And suddenly, God was standing over him” as “The glory of God is stationed over him”. “God came down” (11:5) is rendered “The glory of God was revealed”. The clear import here is that it was not God’ essential form that was revealed, but His glory. This is a conceptual clarification of the text, as pointed out by the medieval commentator R’ Bachya ben Joseph Ibn Paquda, Chovat HaLevavot (Duties of The Heart, Feldheim New York 1996.), p. 129.

17 Compare, for example, Gaudiya Vaishaivism, which sees icons of Krishna as representing his true form in Vaikuntha, his heavenly world, or Shaiva Siddhanta, which views Shiva iconography as being symbolically correspondent to real attributes, and in fact, a divinely willed self-representation in all its details.

18 The distinction between this world and the spiritual world (the heavens) is not as distinct in Biblical times as in post-Biblical cosmology.

19 This may be an attempt to avoid giving the impression that YHWH has been seen in his essential form, which would be problematic for reasons we will explore, or it may be an attempt to back off from suggesting that Ezekiel’s vision is comparable to Moshe, since “there never arose again a Prophet like Moshe in Israel, who saw YHWH face to face” (Dev)

20 The model of the Documentary Hypothesis expounded by Friedman seperates the Torah into 4 main sources, J, E, P and D, written in that order. J, written in Yehudah, and E, written in the northern kingdom of Israel, were combined by the redactor RJE. P was composed as a competing history to RJE shortly afterwards. D was composed in two steps, a pre-exilic version in the times of Yoshiahu (625 BCE) and a post exilic one, sometime after the return in 527 BCE. All the sources were combined by a further redactor, R, into the Torah we have now.

21 The New Supplementary Hypothesis posits that there were only three stages, and no separate source documents, in the composition of the Torah. These are D, J (approximately equivalent to J and E in Friedman’s hypothesis), and P. Each time new material was added to the growing document by a new author and editor.

22 Friedman, p.121.

23 And of course J’s mal’akh in Shemot is non-anthropomorphic.

24 Gods of India, Rome, and Babylon respectively. And no statue representing YHWH has yet been found. See Kugel p.106. It is interesting to compare Mosheh’s shielding of his eyes so as not to see YHWH in Shemot 3:6 with the reactions of characters in Hindu tales to the appearance of Krishna. There the text describes at length the pleasures of gazing at His form, and even the heavenly rewards of seeing it. This is consistent with a fiercely iconic religion like Hindism, in contradistinction to Judaism.

25“ Mishneh Torah, Book One: Knowledge, 1:8”. Twerski, Isadore. A Maimonides Reader. New Jersey, Behrman House 1972.

26 Phylacteries.

27 Prayer shawl.

28 The Tanya: Bilingual Edition, Kehot Publication Society, New York 1998.

29 See Wilber, Ken. A Brief History of Everything. Shambhala, Boston 2000, p. 52-62 and elsewhere. Wilber argues that leading sages in different cultural epochs move human culture further, but can never break totally free of the dominant paradigms. This happens slowly and incrementally, the work of many hands. As paradigms change, human experience itself changes.

30 The Tanya, Hebrew-English Edition.