 |
|
|
The Israel
Koschitzky Virtual Beit Midrash
Parshat HaShavua This parasha series is
dedicated ******************************************************** PARASHAT
BESHALACH ********************************************************* This shiur is
dedicated in honor of Rabbi Jon Bloomberg, recipient of the Pillar of Maimonides
Award, by his student, Avrom Okon. ********************************************************* Etzion
Foundation cordially invites you Rabbi Ari
Berman '87 Guest of
Honor - Rabbinic Tribute Award Dr. Mark and
Brenda Gardenswartz - Parents of the Year Elana Stein
'00 and Tova Warburg Sinensky '00 Alumnae of
the Year, Stella K. Abraham Beit Midrash for Women Alumni of
the Yeshivat Har Etzion Classes of 1985 and 1986 Tuesday, the
21st of March 2006 Buffet
Dinner 6:00p.m. Program
7:30p.m Grand Hyatt
Hotel Park Avenue
at Grand Central, New York City ********************************************************* By Rav Tamir
Granot INTRODUCTION In this shiur we shall address a
certain aspect of God's revelation in the world, as described in Tanakh. The
commonly-held conception is that of God's presence in the heavens; the heavens
are His dwelling place, that is where He is usually to be found, and from there
He reveals Himself from time to time within the world. Tanakh shows no
signs of a pantheistic theology [1], as Spinoza noted, nor even a gentler
theology of immanence, as maintained in Hassidism and Kabbala
[2]. On the other hand, it is clear that God's
transcendence in Tanakh is not absolute for God is, indeed, revealed in
the world; He appears, directs, influences. This idea is expressed most
eloquently by Rabbi Yehuda ha-Levi in the distinction that he draws between the
God of Aristotle and the God of Avraham. It appears that the characteristics of
Divine manifestation in the world may be presented schematically as
follows: 1.
speech prophecy 2.
phenomena contravening the laws of nature
miracles 3.
management of history Divine Providence, reward and
punishment 4.
appearance revelations of God's glory The entire Tanakh is based on the
assumption that the timing and frequency of these manifestations rests with God
alone. There is no way of understanding biblical history, or the Torah with its
concept of religious obligation, without a recognition of God's ability to speak
with people and especially His prophets, to manage history according to His
will, and to change the laws of nature so as to fulfill His
objectives. This shiur will be devoted to
trying to understand the fourth manner of Divine manifestation in the above
list. Many times, God is revealed through tangible phenomena that represent Him.
Less frequently, God's appearance reminds the prophet or seer of a human form.
Clearly, the prophet may imagine the appearance of God in his mind, but he does
not see it manifested in reality. We are speaking here of seeing God as revealed
in reality, in the world: seeing God sitting on His elevated, lofty throne, His
robes filling the Sanctuary. The Tanakh offers various terms for
describing the manifestation of God: "vision," "form (of God)," "face (of God),"
and sometimes directly as in the verses in Yishayahu Chapter 6. But the
most frequently used term to describe God's appearance is "kavod"
glory. We shall yet examine the exact meaning of this term, but we may already
say that the expression "God's glory" means His embodiment, or concretization
[3], within some real, worldly entity. In this shiur we shall examine
this manner of Divine immanence which comes to the world through concretization
of God through some entity or phenomenon. We do not intend to elaborate on
visions that include anthropomorphic images of God. When God reveals Himself to
His prophets as a figure, or form, this is usually just a prophetic vision, such
that the revelation is part of the prophetic imagination rather than a real
entity in itself. Revelation of God by means of His concretization is described
in Tanakh as a real, tangible occurrence, actively influencing what is
happening in reality [4]. This is the simple meaning of the text when it says,
"For you did not see any image on the day that God spoke with you at the
mountain, from amidst the fire." In other words, you did not see any image other
than the fire, in which I was embodied. The fire was the manner of revelation;
there was no image other than that. Let us address the fundamental
significance of revelation through some tangible entity. What this means is that
God is revealed as an object or phenomenon within nature. When He is revealed,
whoever views the revelation knows that he is experiencing a Divine
manifestation. The occurrence of revelation is an extraordinary phenomenon; on
the other hand, it is not necessarily miraculous, in the strict sense of the
word meaning, it does not necessarily involve a deviation from the laws of
nature. Because we are speaking of a natural
event, it is also characterized by ups-and-downs and side-effects. The
appearance of God in the world is certainly an elevating, inspiring event, but
it is also threatening and traumatic. Thus, in many instances the revelation has
some central focus, but the experience and the description of it include
attention to events that merely accompany the revelation or are results of it. A
prominent example of this is to be found in the description of the revelation at
Sinai, which was accompanied by some most impressive vocal and meteorological
phenomena. In attempting to understand the revelation we must draw a distinction
between the accompanying phenomena and the revelation itself. God's glory
appeared within a certain medium, and this revelation made an impression on what
was going on all around. The accompanying events may be symptoms of the
revelation itself and may point to the atmosphere in which it takes place and
which it creates. We shall attempt to answer the following
questions: 1.
Which are the natural phenomena within which God is manifest in the
world? 2.
What is the significance of the codes of revelation, such as "God's
glory," "face," "dwelling" etc.? 3.
What is the purpose of revelation specifically through a natural
phenomenon? Let us explain this question. Often God speaks to a person, and
there is no description of any Divine concretization. The question is, why are
there descriptions of Divine revelation within natural phenomenon in some
instances, but not in others? Is it
because God reveals Himself in tangible phenomena only in special cases, or
because often a tangible revelation within reality is irrelevant to the issue at
hand, and therefore no mention is made of it? It is clear, in any event, that a
story about the manifestation of God's glory and even more so in the event of
advance notice of such an event, or a mortal request that it take place proves
that there is a special need for it. We shall try to discover the purposes of
the revelation in different instances. In light of the answers to the questions
above, we shall also try to propose new interpretations of a number of
well-known biblical events that have at their center a revelation of God's
glory. Note: our comments below relate only to
one, central aspect of Divine manifestation: revelation through fire and a
cloud. We may extrapolate from this concerning other stories of revelation, but
our discussion will be limited to this issue alone. On some other occasion we
will hopefully address other aspects of Divine revelation. Part 1 In most of the descriptions of Divine
revelations in Tanakh, God appears in the form of fire and cloud. In many
cases, the description includes both phenomena at the same time. In some others,
the revelation involves only one of them especially the appearance of a cloud.
In their description of revelation itself, biblical texts adopt a range of
different styles in accordance with the occasion and the special character of
the book in question. Let us illustrate the above with some
examples: Revelation in fire and
cloud: 1.
"And behold, when the sun had gone down and it was dark, THERE WAS A
SMOKING FURNACE AND A BURNING TORCH THAT PASSED BETWEEN THOSE PIECES"
(Bereishit 15:17). 2.
"Moshe ascended to the mountain, and the CLOUD covered the mountain. And
the GLORY OF GOD dwelled upon Mount Sinai, and the cloud covered it for six
days. He called to Moshe on the seventh day from amidst THE
CLOUD. And the sight of THE GLORY OF GOD was
LIKE A DEVOURING FIRE, at thee top of the mountain, in the sight of Bnei
Yisrael" (Shemot 24:15-17). 3.
"SMOKE WENT UP FROM HIS NOSTRILS AND FIRE FROM HIS MOUTH devoured; coals
burned from it. He bent the heavens and came down, and there was DARKNESS under
His feet. He rode upon a keruv and flew, and was seen upon the wings of the
wind. HE SPREAD DARKNESS AROUND HIM LIKE WALLS,
THE MASS OF WATER, THE THICK CLOUDS OF THE SKY. FROM THE BRIGHTNESS IN FRONT OF HIM,
COALS BURNED WITH FIRE" (II Shemuel 22:9-13). 4.
"I looked, and behold, a storm wind came from the north A GREAT CLOUD
AND A FLARING FIRE, and a brightness around it, and from the midst of it
something like the appearance of electrum, from the midst of the fire"
(Yechezkel 1:4). Revelation in fire
alone: 1. "An angel of God appeared to him IN A
FLAME OF FIRE from the midst of the bush, and he saw, and behold the bush was
burning with fire, but the bush was not consumed" (Shemot
3:2). 2. "God went before them by day (in a
pillar of cloud, to guide them on the way), AND AT NIGHT IN A PILLAR OF FIRE, to
illuminate for them as they went by day and by night" (Shemot
14:21). 3. "God will create, upon every dwelling
place of Mount Zion and upon her assemblies, a cloud by day and smoke, AND A
BRILLIANT FLAMING FIRE BY NIGHT, for upon all the glory there shall be a canopy"
(Yishayahu 4:5). 4. "For behold, GOD WILL COME WITH FIRE
and like a storm with His chariots, to turn back His anger with fury and His His
rebuke with flames of fire" (Yishayahu 66:15). Revelation in a cloud
alone: 1. "God went before them by day IN A
PILLAR OF CLOUD, to guide them on the way, and by night in a pillar of fire, to
illuminate for them as they went, by day and by night" (Shemot
14:21). 2. "And it was, as Aharon spoke to all of
the congregation of the children of Israel, they turned to the wilderness and
behold the glory of God appeared IN THE CLOUD" (Shemot
16:10). 3. "God said to Moshe: Behold, I shall
come to you in a THICK CLOUD, in order that the nation may hear when I speak
with you, and they will believe in you, also, forever. And Moshe told God what
the people had said" (Shemot 19:9). 4. "And it was, when Moshe came to the
Tent, the pillar of CLOUD descended and stood at the entrance to the Tent, and
He spoke with Moshe. And all the nation saw THE PILLAR OF CLOUD standing at the
entrance to the Tent, and all the people rose and prostrated themselves, each at
the entrance to his tent" (Shemot 33:9-10). As we have noted, the text adopts
different images to describe the revelation in a cloud or in fire. The fire in
which God is revealed is mentioned as plain fire, and also as a "flaming torch,"
a "pillar of fire," a "consuming fire," a "flaming fire," "smoke," and a
"brilliant flame of fire." Similarly, the cloud in which He is revealed is
described simply as a cloud, and also as a "smoking oven," the "smoking
furnace," a "pillar of cloud," a "thick cloud," a "black cloud of darkness," a
"darkness like walls, a mass of water, the thick clouds of the
sky." The revelation in cloud often has
consequences and ramifications that are related to the meteorological essence of
a cloud - darkness, opacity and concealment, on one hand, and on the other hand,
phenomena related to water - a river of peace, a flowing brook, "upon many
waters," etc. Revelation in fire has consequences
related to the physical essence of fire, on one hand, destruction "a fire is
kindled in My anger," "He is a consuming fire," on the other hand consequences
related to light, "The glory of God has risen over you," "the land is
illuminated by His glory," "from the brightness in front of Him," "at night in
a pillar of fire, to illuminate for them" etc. Let us now clarify the significance of
the differences between these instances, and the relationship between revelation
in a cloud and revelation in fire. Part 2 There are two fundamental approaches to
analyzing our question. 1. One is to assume that the various
descriptions of revelation are simply different angles of the same vision, and
the differences relate either to the specific function of each revelation or to
the perspective of the people viewing it or describing it. If this is the case,
we must locate, among the many descriptions, the primary, fundamental elements,
and then explain all the revelations that are partial or different from the full
revelation. 2. The other possibility is to assume
that the multiplicity of descriptions is a true reflection of the fact that,
from a substantive perspective, there are in fact many forms of Divine
revelation, not only one, or that the various spectators to revelation
prophets and other biblical narrators are divided among them as to its
form. I propose to accept the first approach
since it provides us with a better understanding of the significance of Divine
revelation and allows us, through a systematic understanding of the manner of
revelation, to arrive at a better interpretation of several biblical
narratives. The key to understanding the manner of
revelation is to be found, to my view, in an examination of the relationship
between visions of fire and visions of a cloud. As stated, in any instances we
find these visions independently of one another. Thus, in the Exodus, the text
describes God going before the Israelite camp to lead it; by day He is revealed
as a pillar of cloud by night as a pillar of fire. Some opinions maintain that
these are two functionally distinct revelations that are fundamentally different
from one another. The pillars are emissaries of God, sent to guide His nation;
God creates a pillar of cloud in the day and fire by night so that both will be
visible. But it is clear that the manifestation in
fire and in cloud here is more than just functional. God does not reveal Himself
in fire and in cloud on a merely ad hoc basis; rather, He is always
manifest specifically in a cloud and/or in fire, and hence Bnei Yisrael
have not only a guide, but also the very Presence of God going before the
camp. Are there really two revelations here
one in a pillar of clouds and the other in a pillar of fire? In order to answer
this question we must grapple with a most problematic literary unit: the
description of the journey of Bnei Yisrael to the Red
Sea. Part 3 Let us focus on Chapters 13-14 of
Sefer Shemot, describing the journey of Bnei Yisrael from
Egypt. The description of the journey consists
of four clear sections: 1. The description of the expulsion of
Bnei Yisrael and Pharoah's subsequent change of heart (Shemot
13:17-14:8) 2. The description of Bnei
Yisrael's fear as they encamp by the sea and notice the Egyptians in pursuit
(14:9-15) 3. The description of Bnei
Yisrael's entry into the sea (14:16-22) 4. The description of the Egyptians'
entry into the sea and their drowning (14:23-29) Right now we are interested in the third
section, because it is here that God begins to act through the essences that
represent Him. Let us review the verses: (15) "God said to Moshe; Why are you
crying out to Me? Speak to Bnei Yisrael, and let them journey
on. (16) And you raise your staff and
stretch your arm over the sea and divide it, such that Bnei Yisrael will
come into the midst of the sea on dry land. (17) As for Me behold, I shall harden
the hearts of the Egyptians and they shall come after them, and I shall be
glorified through Pharoah and through all of his army, through his chariots and
his horsemen. (18) Then all of Egypt will know that I
am God, when I am glorified through Pharoah and through his chariots and through
his horsemen. (19) Then an angel of God who was
proceeding before the camp of Israel went and walked at the back of them, and
the pillar of cloud went from before them and stood at the back of them.
(20) And it came between the camp of
Egypt and the camp of Israel and there was the cloudwith darkness, and it
illuminated the night, and one [camp] did not come near to the other all
night. (21) Then Moshe stretched out his hand
over the sea, and God drove the sea with a strong east wind all night, and made
the sea dry land, and the water was divided. (22) So Bnei Yisrael came into the
midst of the sea on dry land, and the water was for them a wall on their right
and on their left." In the above excerpt we find the command
for Bnei Yisrael to enter the sea and the promise that God will harden
the heart of the Egyptians so that they, too, will enter the sea. The basic
storyline could be recounted on the basis of verses 15-18, and then verse 21
onwards. It is not clear what verses 19-20 are doing here, describing as they do
the relocation of the pillar of cloud and the pillar of fire. The problem, in
fact, is a dual one: a. It is difficult to understand how this
relocation of the pillar of cloud from its regular place in front of the camp to
a new station at the rear is a necessary element within the
narrative. b. It is also difficult to understand
what exactly the verses here are describing, and the purpose of the relocation
of the manifestation of God. We may list as follows the internal
difficulties arising from these two verses: - Who, or what, is this "angel of God"
described as journeying behind the camp of Israel? - Why does the angel / pillar of fire
change its location? - From verses 20-21 it would appear that
all of this happened at night but during the night the pillar was of fire, not
of clouds! - The following phrase is a peculiar one:
"There was the cloud with darkness, and it illuminated the night." How does the
cloud with darkness illuminate the night? Rashi is sensitive to these difficulties
and attempts to resolve them, as follows: "'And it went at the back of them' to
create a division between the camp of Egypt and the camp of Israel, and to
absorb the arrows and stones cast by the Egyptians. Wherever the text refers to
an angel of the Lord and here angel of God it refers only to [the attribute
of justice], teaching that Bnei Yisrael were subject to Divine judgment
at that time whether they would be saved or whether they would be destroyed
along with the Egyptians. 'The pillar of cloud moved' when it
became dark and time for the pillar of cloud leading the camp to become a pillar
of fire, the cloud did not disappear, as it used to disappear altogether at
night, but rather traveled and went at the back of them, to make it dark for the
Egyptians. 'And it came between the camp of Egypt'
this may be compared to a person who goes on the way and has his son walking in
front of him. If robbers come to harm him he takes [his son] from before him
and places him behind himself. If wolves come from behind he places him in
front of himself. If robbers approach ahead and wolves from behind, he takes
[his son] in his arms and fights them. Thus (Hoshea 11), "I showed
Ephraim to walk, taking them in His arms." 'And there was the cloud with darkness'
for the Egyptians; 'and it illuminated' the pillar of fire
illuminated the night for Israel, and went before them as it usually did, all
night, casting black darkness towards the Egyptians. 'so one did not approach the other'
(Mekhilta) one camp [did not approach] the other
camp." Rashi attempts, in this explanation, to
resolve all of the above difficulties. At first the pillar is a pillar of cloud
because the beginning of the journey was during the day. However, on this
particular one-time occasion, the pillar of cloud remained even when it was
dark. The purpose of moving to the back of the camp was to bring darkness upon
the Egyptians and to protect Israel from their arrows. The pillar of fire
remained in its usual place, and it was this that illuminated the night for
Israel, so that they could see their way to the sea. Thus, according to Rashi,
each of the pillars fulfills a distinct function, with the overall objective
being the same: to protect Israel and to lead them safely towards the sea. The
major problem with Rashi's explanation is that the crux of what he is saying is
missing from the text. Nowhere does the Torah say anything about the purpose of
the pillar being to protect Israel. The verse appears to tell us only that the
pillar of fire "illuminated the night" i.e., it was there for illumination and
not for any other purpose. Furthermore, Rashi assumes that the
pillar of fire gave light, as it usually would. But the text says nothing about
this. It seems to be telling us that it was specifically the cloud with the
darkness that illuminated the night. If we assume that the formulation here is
in abbreviated form, and what the Torah means is indeed that the pillar of fire
illuminated, then the problem is that the pillar was now located at the rear of
the camp rather than in front of it; how, then, did it give light from
behind? These difficulties inherent in Rashi's
explanation demand another look at the verses, with special attention to two
points: a. the significance of God's promise to
harden the heart of Pharoah and the Egyptians so that they would enter the sea,
and b. an understanding of the revelation of
the cloud and the fire. Let us start with the second
point: Rashi's interpretation is based on the
assumption that there are two distinct pillars: one of a cloud the other of
fire. This, to my mind, represents the source of most of the exegetical
difficulties. Let us propose for a moment, without presenting all the arguments
in favor of this view, that the text is speaking not of two separate pillars,
but rather of one single pillar of fire and cloud together fire on the inside
and a cloud on the outside. According to this understanding, the distinction
that the verses point to at the end of Chapter 13 (beginning of Parashat
Beshalach) between day and night is not a change in the essence of the
revelation, but rather in the manner in which it is perceived by the viewer. The
cloud is what is seen by day, and the fire is what they see at night. This is
the difference between them. Indeed, further on in the parasha, when we
find the description of the defeat of the Egyptians in the sea, we read, "And it
was, AT THE MORNING WATCH, that God looked upon the camp of Egypt THROUGH THE
PILLAR OF FIRE AND CLOUD, and He confounded the camp of the Egyptians." At the
morning watch when there is already light, but the moon and stars are still
visible the fire and clouds could be perceived together. And indeed, according
to the description here, THERE IS ONLY ONE PILLAR, OF BOTH FIRE AND CLOUD,
rather than of one of them alone. This being the case, the pillar of fire
and cloud, which is the only pillar that exists, moved to the rear of the camp
of Israel and gave light not for Israel, but for Egypt [5]. What illuminated
was the fire, which always gave light; indeed, in many descriptions of
revelation, fire is described as providing illumination. God's angel traveling
before the camp is itself the pillar of cloud as we read previously, "And God
went before them in a pillar
." I.e., the text emphasizes that God placed
Himself, as it were, between the two camps. Accordingly, our interpretation of
the verse should be: 'The pillar of cloud moved from before
them' close to evening, 'and came between the camp of Egypt
and
there was a cloud' the cloud placed itself, return to what was said
before, 'and darkness' the night became dark,
immediately afterwards, 'and it illuminated the night' the
pillar of cloud which has been the subject all along i.e., the angel of God,
i.e., the fire of God within the cloud. All of this happens just after it grows
dark. Immediately thereafter Moshe stretches
his hand, and then "God drove the sea with a strong east wind all night." This
development sits well with the chronology that we have proposed, according to
which the pillar of fire illuminates right at the beginning of the evening, and
then Moshe stretches out his hand and the wind starts up; it then blows all
night and dries the middle of the sea. It is in the middle of the night that
Bnei Yisrael enter the sea and also emerge from it, and the Egyptians
enter the sea on their heels, by the light of the pillar of fire. At the morning
watch God casts confusion among them with His pillar of fire and cloud, Moshe
stretches out his hand, and the sea returns to its
strength. But the picture that emerges from the
above interpretation is a very strange one! It seems paradoxical that at the
most critical moment, the Divine pillar of fire works to the benefit of the
Egyptians, rather than to the benefit of Bnei
Yisrael! In order to understand this point, let us
return to our question a. above, concerning the hardening of Pharoah's
heart: God promises Moshe that He will harden
the hearts of the Egyptians, and the Egyptians will follow them into the midst
of the sea. How did God harden Pharoah's heart? How did He harden the hearts of
the Egyptians? We ask this question with respect to the
specific point in time when they entered the sea, but clearly the question is of
central importance in understanding the story of the Exodus as a whole. Already
in verse 7, God tells Moshe: 'I shall harden Pharoah's heart, and I
shall multiply My signs and My wonders
." Afterwards, in all the plagues save for
the last, the text notes that Pharoah hardened his heart, or that God helped him
to do so. Even after Bnei Yisrael leave
Egypt, there is a need for God to harden Pharoah's heart in order that he will
decide to go off to the desert in pursuit of them: "Then Pharoah will say of Bnei
Yisrael: 'They are lost in the land, the wilderness has closed in on them';
and I shall harden Pharoah's heart, so he will pursue after them, and I shall be
glorified through Pharoah and through all of his army, and the Egyptians shall
know that I am God
." The purpose of hardening Pharoah's heart
is, as we learn from the verses quoted above, to teach the Egyptians to
recognize God, by having God multiply His wonders among them. Indirectly,
Bnei Yisrael also come to learn this along with the other nations ("The
nations heard and were afraid"). But understanding the purpose of the hardening
of his heart in no way alleviates the difficulty inherent in the concept of
using this tactic. The commentators and Chazal discuss at length the
problems arising here in relation to the principle of reward and punishment.
Rabbi Yochanan, in the Midrash, sees this as an invitation for heretics to make
their case. A God who hardens the heart of a king in order to punish him would
appear to be acting out of an evil obsession. One may, heaven forefend, try to
prove from here that there are two opposing divine powers in the world as
Persian theology maintained - and the text under discussion records the actions
of the "god of evil." Chazal's major line of response adopted also by
the Rambam, in his Laws of Repentance (Chapter 6) is that the hardening of
Pharoah's heart was a means of punishment after his fate had already been
sealed. If the hardening of his heart comes after his measure of sin was filled
and the time had come for punishment, then it could indeed be a fair and just
punishment. There is no difference between God causing someone to suffer or
causing him to die and hardening his heart in order to cause him pain. Indeed,
the commentators make almost no attempt to understand how the mechanism of
"hardening the heart" operates. We must assume that most of them accepted that
the hardening of his heart is achieved by manipulative intervention in the
consciousness or will of the person in question, and that it is miraculous and
not given to human understanding: "The heart of kings is in God's hand." The
reactions of a person whose heart has been hardened are automatic; they are, in
fact, non-human. Hence, they can only be justified as a punishment that comes to
a person as a stage on the path to death. It would seem that close inspection of
the series of narratives in which expressions of "hardening of the heart" appear
could lead us to a different understanding of the issue. Let us examine, for
example, the opening section of Chapter 14, with the story of the Egyptian
pursuit: (1) "God spoke to Moshe,
saying: (2) Speak to Bnei Yisrael, and let
them go back and encamp before Pi Ha-chirot, between Migdol and the sea,
before Ba'al Tzefon; you shall encamp facing it, at the
sea. (3) And Pharoah will say of Bnei
Yisrael, 'They are lost in the land; the wilderness has closed about
them.' (4) And I shall harden Pharoah's heart,
so that he will pursue after them, AND I SHALL BE GLORIFIED THROUGH PHAROAH AND
THROUGH HIS ARMY, AND THE EGYPTIANS SHALL KNOW THAT I AM THE LORD.' And they did
so. (5) When it was told to the King of Egypt
that the nation had fled, the heart of Pharoah and his servants turned, and they
said: 'Why have we done this, that we have let Israel go from serving
us?' (6) So he readied his chariot and took
his people with him. (7) And he took six hundred choice
chariots, and all the chariots of Egypt, with captains over all of
them. (8) And God hardened the heart of
Pharoah, King of Egypt, and he pursued after Bnei Yisrael, and Bnei
Yisrael went out with a high hand." Here, too, there is a Divine promise
concerning the hardening of Pharoah's heart, but in this case its purpose is to
reverse Pharoah's despair and submission and to "turn his heart" such that he
will stop being afraid, and go out to pursue Israel. Once again, we may ask how
God actually acts through the heart of this wicked king, and we may suffice with
the assumption of the miracle and the All-Powerful will. But it would seem that
there is no need to resort to this. In truth, the text itself supplies the
answer. The narrative here, like all of Chapter 14, is built in a chiastic
structure with its climax the point of the entire story being, "THE
EGYPTIANS SHALL KNOW THAT I AM GOD." It is around this central point that the
story is set out, with symmetrical "arms" preceding and succeeding it. Thus, the
hardening of Pharoah's heart occurs by means of a simple manipulation of
historical events. Bnei Yisrael escape, and one way or another this
becomes known and is reported to Pharoah. Pharoah need only make his simple
calculation: My nation of slaves is lost in the desert; there is apparently
no-one to lead them. This may confirm the prophecy of his astrologers: "They are
heading towards evil." It may also be that this suited some metaphysical
hypothesis that the God of the Hebrews did not rule the desert, but rather only
inhabited areas. In any event, the internal pressures that had always weighed in
favor of refusing Israel's request were effective this time, too. The need for
slaves, the honor of the kingdom, and the ego of the humiliated king, all
desperate to be shored up these are the elements that count once the external
circumstances calm down. God has no need to intervene in the ways of the royal
will. It is enough that the surrounding factors be organized such that their
general constellation will bring about a certain pharaoic
reaction. This may also be the intention behind the
textual conclusion of each of the plagues with the record of God hardening
Pharoah's heart. The limited nature of the plagues in terms of time and quality
(they were neither too long nor too severe) allowed the Egyptians, and Pharoah,
to act in a way that was subject to their fixed interests, rather than out of
pressure caused by the plagues. The "hardening of Pharoah's heart," according to
this hypothesis, is not the forcing of his will, but rather the creation of
circumstances that allowed for choice and guided the reaction in a certain
direction, even if they did not actually dictate it. Rav Yaakov Medan explains
further that the behavior of Moshe and Aharon in their negotiations with Pharoah
also helped him to harden his heart. More than once Pharoah asks Moshe to remove
a plague from him "Pray to God that He may remove only this death from me."
Moshe readily agrees for example, "He said By tomorrow, in order that you
may know that there is none like the Lord our God." He accepts Pharoah's
promises without demanding any political or other guarantee. Pharoah must
certainly tell himself: "Perhaps they have power, but they have no idea how to
exploit it for political ends." Their political ineptitude is thus a part of the
hardening of his heart, opening channels of maneuverability which, had they not
existed, would probably not have allowed Pharoah to withstand everything that
happens to himself and to his nation. I propose that the withdrawal of the
pillar of cloud and fire to the rear of the camp of Israel represents a
fulfillment of the promise to harden the heart of Pharoah and the Egyptians so
that they would pursue Bnei Yisrael into the sea. It is an absurd move
but that is precisely its purpose. It is precisely at this dramatic moment, as
God is ready to split the sea in order to save Israel and to exact revenge on
the Egyptians, that an obvious question arises. There is no reason why Pharoah
and his army, upon seeing the sea split in half, should take their lives in
their hands and enter. This vision would contradict the basic assumption of
their pursuit - Once again the God of Israel is seen to be acting in favor of
the slaves. In other words, He has power outside of Egypt, too. It is for this
reason that the pillar of cloud (at the end of the day, immediately becoming a
pillar of fire as night falls) moves from its regular position. The Egyptians
see the pillar of fire approaching to lead them, and they see that Bnei
Yisrael are left without any guiding figure. They have an excellent view of
the Israelite camp, thanks to the illumination of the pillar of fire-cloud,
while Bnei Yisrael themselves are shrouded in darkness. These conditions
inspire the Egyptians with confidence to enter the sea despite what must have
been great astonishment at the fact of its splitting. It should be added that this may also be
the reason for the sea splitting in stages: "God drove a strong east wind all
night." If the sea would have split all at once, it never would have entered the
minds of the Egyptians to go after Bnei Yisrael. The
pseudo-natural phenomenon thus played a role in the hardening of Pharoah's
heart. A study of the structure of this
narrative lends support to our hypothesis: a. (16) "And you raise your staff
and stretch out your hand over the sea and divide it: b. Bnei Yisrael came
into the midst of the sea on dry land c. (17) As for Me behold, I shall
harden the heart of the Egyptians, and they shall come after
them d. AND I SHALL BE GLORIFIED THROUGH
PHAROAH AND THROUGH ALL OF HIS ARMY, HIS CHARIOTS AND HIS
HORSEMEN e. (18) That Egypt may know that I am the
Lord D. WHEN I AM GLORIFIED THROUGH PHAROAH,
THROUOGH HIS CHARIOTS AND THROUGH HIS HORSEMEN C. (19) and the angel of God that went
before the camp of Israel journeyed and went to the back of them, and the pillar
of cloud, journeyed from before them and stood at the back of
them B. And it came between the camp of
Egypt and the camp of Israel, and there was the cloud with darkness, and it
lit up the night, and one did not come close to the other all
night A. (21) And Moshe stretched out his
hand over the sea and God drove the sea with a strong east wind all night,
and He made the sea into dry land, and the water was
divided. b. (22) And Bnei Yisrael came
into the midst of the sea on dry land, and the water was a wall for them on
their right and on their left. It is immediately clear that this story
bears a chiastic structure, with the central axis like the first story in the
chapter representing the point of the whole development: "That Egypt may know
that I am the Lord." On either side of this central axis pairs of clearly
parallel statements are arranged, lending the unit its perfect structure. But
the parallel causes us to understand that the "arm" corresponding to the
announcement concerning the hardening of Pharoah's heart is the description of
the relocation of the pillar of fire and cloud. It is by means of this
relocation that God hardens Pharoah's heart as explained
above. According to the above interpretation,
the phrase, "One did not come close to the other all night" actually implies a
"nevertheless." In other words, despite the fact that God lit up the night for
the Egyptians and made it dark for Bnei Yisrael, such that the
Egyptians could seemingly have managed quite easily and naturally to capture
them, they did not do so. Perhaps there was something miraculous about this, or
perhaps the Egyptians feared some sort of trap, such that they continued to
pursue but at a distance. To summarize thus far: the pillar of fire
and cloud is one and the same. The relocation of this pillar at the end of the
day (according to what comes next we read "all night") created a night in
which the pillar of fire gave illumination to the Egyptians. Later on, God was
revealed at the morning watch and He cast confusion amongst them. As noted
above, because this was a time of transition between day and night, the pillar
was perceived as being both fire and cloud simultaneously. Part 4 Let us now explain that which we assumed
above with no explanation. We proposed that the revelation in fire and a cloud
is one and the same thing, and the differences between the various descriptions
lies in the eye of the beholder, rather than in any objective quality of the
revelation itself. God is always manifest in fire from within a cloud. The cloud
conceals and hides the fire in its midst. We may assume that the cloud is the
result of the waves of heat and moisture around the fire. This is not
necessarily a cloud of water. It should be remembered that Tanakh offers
various expressions in its description of the cloud: "arafel,"
"ashan," etc. A striking and relatively clear
description is provided in Sefer Shemot, where the Torah speaks of the
Divine glory resting upon Mount Sinai, and later on the descent of God's glory
to dwell in the Mishkan. There is a clear literary parallel between the two
descriptions [6], and they point to one another. It is therefore worthwhile
paying attention to the correspondence between them: Shemot 24 Mount Sinai: a. "The cloud covered the
mountain" b. "God's glory dwelled upon Mount
Sinai" c. "The cloud covered it for six
days" d. "He called to Moshe on the seventh day
from the midst of the cloud" e. "The appearance of God's glory was
like a consuming fire at the top of the mountain" Shemot 30 Ohel
Mo'ed: a. "The cloud covered the Ohel
Mo'ed" b. "God's glory filled the
Mishkan" c. "For God's cloud was upon the Mishkan
by day" d. "He called to
Moshe" e. "And fire was in it by
night" The parallel is clear. God dwells upon
Mount Sinai, the glory of God rests within the cloud. The expression "the glory
of God" means the revelation of the Divine Presence. Clearly, it has many kinds
of functions; in this context, the main function would seem to be speech. But
how is it recognizable to those witnessing it? The text explains, "Like a
CONSUMING fire at the top of the mountain." In other words, God's glory appears
like a fire. The fire is covered with a cloud. God's glory calls to Moshe who
previously was not able to approach. In the case of the Ohel Mo'ed, we
are told this explicitly. Why could Moshe not come to the Ohel Mo'ed?
"For the cloud dwelled upon it." What kind of explanation is this? How and why
does the cloud prevent him from approaching? The answer is to be found in the
second part of the verse: "And the glory of God filled the Mishkan." Moshe is
prevented from coming before the glory of God which is fire! The same message
arises from chapter 40: "Fire was in it by night." Specifically "in it" for
previously we were told that the cloud was covering, therefore now the text is
explicit: "For the cloud of God was UPON the Mishkan by day." But His glory
"fills the Mishkan" and therefore "in it." Clearly, Moshe is not able to
enter. For the very same reason he is prevented from approaching God at Mount
Sinai for the appearance of God's glory is like a consuming fire. This is an
expression implying threat: "For the Lord your God is a CONSUMING fire, a
jealous God." This is the full description of the revelation, both at Mount
Sinai and in the introduction to the Divine Presence coming to dwell in the
Ohel Mo'ed. The structure is well defined: God's glory, appearing as a fire, is
revealed with a veil of a cloud. The cloud is on the outside; the fire is on the
inside. The cloud is above the Mishkan; the fire is within it. Hence, the last
verse of Sefer Shemot, describing the revelation of the cloud by day and
the fire by night, is recounted from the perspective of the nation that is
watching. From an objective point of view, the fire (God's glory)and the cloud
both remain there all the time. Attention should also be paid to the
following parallel: Shemot 13 (our
parasha): a. "God went before
them b. by day in a pillar of cloud, to show
them the way c. and at night in a pillar of fire, to
make light for them Shemot 40: a. "And the cloud covered the Ohel
Mo'ed, and God's glory filled the Mishkan b. For God's cloud was upon the mishkan
by day c. and fire was in it by
night." Thus we learn that in the same way that
God was revealed when Bnei Yisrael left Egypt, so He was revealed to them
on Mount Sinai. And in the very same way He was revealed in the Ohel
Mo'ed. And just as in the two latter cases His glory was manifest as fire
within a cloud, so it was in the first case. Thus, there are not two separate
pillars, but rather only one. Notes: [1] Identifying God as
reality. [2] In the spirit of the dicta, "There is
no place that is devoid of Him," and "He fills all the
world." [3] Meaning: manifestation, or
appearance, via or by means of an object, as viewed by man. From a metaphysical
perspective, the Ramban maintained that the "glory" is actually itself a created
entity, i.e., there is no real manifestation here within something, but rather a
representation by means of an intermediary. The description in the verses
provide no basis for this view. [4] This distinction does not exist for
the proponents of the philosophical view of prophecy, including the Rambam, who
maintains that every Divine revelation is a matter of consciousness rather than
one of reality. This applies even to the revelation at Sinai and the "Covenant
Between the Parts" that God forged with Avraham. But according to the literal
text, there is a clear distinction between these occasions and, for example, the
visions of the Divine chariot as experienced by Yechezkel or Yishayahu, which
are described as personal, prophetic visions rather than as real
events. [5] But see Yehoshua 24:7 "He
placed darkness between you and the Egyptians." This tradition ignores the last
part of our verse or interprets it as Rashi does. [6] As many commentators have
discussed. Translated by Kaeren
Fish
|