A.
ויהי רעב בארץ מלבד הרעב הראשון אשר הי' בימי אברהם וילך יצחק אל אבימלך מלך פלשתים גררה: (“And there was a famine the Land, aside from the famine which had been in Avraham’s days; and Yitzhaq went to Avimelech, king of Pëlishtim, to Gërar”; XXVI, 1). Of two minds about dealing with the famine, Yitzhaq contemplated following his father’s example and seeking refuge in Egypt. וירא אליו ד' ויאמר אל תרד מצרימה שכן בארץ אשר אמר אליך: גור בארץ הזאת ואהי' עמך ואברכך כי לך ולזרעך אתן את כל הארצת האל וגו' (“And Ha-Shem appeared to him and said, 'Do not go down to Egypt; reside in the Land which I say to you. Dwell in this land and I shall be with you and I shall bless you, for to you and your descendants I shall give all these lands....”; ibid., 2-3).
But shortly after accepting this order, Yitzhaq began to have trouble with the locals: ויחפרו עבדי יצחק בנחל וימצאו שם באר מים חיים: ויריבו רעי גרר עם רעי יצחק לאמר לנו המים וגו' (“And Yitzhaq’s servants dug in the dry river bed and found there a well of gushing water. And the shepherds of Gërar fought with Yitzhaq’s shepherds to say, The water is ours....”; ibid., 19-20). Nor did digging a second well help: ויחפרו באר אחרת ויריבו גם עלי' וגו' (“And they dug another well, and also fought over it...”; ibid., 21). It was only by leaving the area and digging yet a third well that Yitzhaq and his adherents found any peace.
But why should this be? Yitzhaq had obeyed an explicit Divine commandment to remain in the vicinity of Gërar where he was, with the specific Divine promise that G-d would be with him, bless him, and give him “these lands”, yet obeying that commandment led to nothing but trouble. The incident fairly cries out, "Dorshéni (Interpret me)!"
B.
So let us answer the call, by turning to Hazal.
The Torah records that when Moshe embarked on his Divinely-appointed mission to liberate the bënei Yisra’él from Egypt, it did not go well at first; Pharaoh refused to heed his call, and issued decrees more oppressive than before, leading Moshe to complain: ומאז באתי אל פרעה לדבר בשמך הרע לעם הזה והצל לא הצלת את עמך: (“And since I came to Pharaoh to speak in Your name, he has made it worse for this people, and You have certainly not rescued Your people”; Exodus V, 23). The Talmud records the immediate Divine response: אמר לו הקב"ה חבל על דאבדין ולא משתכחין הרי כמה פעמים נגליתי על אברהם יצחק ויעקב בא-ל שד-י ולא הרהרו על מדותי וגו' (“Said the Holy One, Blessed is He, to him, 'How sad it is about those who are lost and not found; several times I was revealed to Avraham, Yitzhaq and Ya‘aqov... and they did not have doubts about My measures [middothai]'”; סנהדרין קי"א. ומובא גם בבבא בתרא ט"ו: לענין אחר). Rashi elucidates: הפסד גדול יש על גדולים שאבדו ואיני יכול למצוא חסידים אחרים כמותם שאין אתה כאברהם ויצחק ויעקב שלא הרהרו אחרי מדותי (“It is a great loss because great men are lost and I am unable to find other hasidim like them, for you are not like Avraham and Yitzhaq and Ya‘aqov who did not have doubts about My middoth”).
The Talmud cites as examples the fact that Avraham had been presented with a Divine promise that G-d was giving the Holy Land to him and his descendants, yet when it came time to find a burial plot for Sara, Avraham had to pay in full for Më‘orath ha-Machpéla, and did so without complaint; that Yitzhaq likewise had such a promise, yet encountered trouble with the Pëlishtim, who certainly had no respect for his property rights, as we have seen; and that Ya‘aqov similarly received such a promise, and likewise had problems, yet none of them questioned Divine Providence as Moshe did.
This suggests that the Patriarchs had a very deep and abiding faith in that Divine Providence, as indeed they must have had. Yet, it seems fair to ask why it should be, in the face of such explicit Divine promises, the sort of difficulties described in each of the cases cited should have arisen. More importantly, is it possible for us to use the knowledge of these conditions in our own attempts to square the Torah’s insistence on such Providence with the realities of our historic and present circumstances?
C.
To find an answer, we first turn elsewhere in the Talmud "והי' ד' למלך על כל הארץ ביום ההוא יהי' ד' אחד ושמו אחד" כו' אטו האידנא לאו שמו אחד הוא?! א"ר נחמן בר יצחק לא כעולם הזה העולם הבא העולם הזה נכתב ביו"ד ה"י ונקרא באל"ך דל"ת אבל לעולם הבא כולו אחד נקרא ביו"ד ה"י ונכתב ביו"ד ה"י (“‘And Ha-Shem will be king over the whole Earth; on that day Ha-Shem will be one and His name one’ [Zechariah XIV, 9, speaking of the coming days of Israel’s anointed king].... Concerning today, His name is not one?! Said Rabbi Nahman bar Yitz-haq, 'Not like this world is the coming world; [in] this world, [the Tetragrammaton] is written with a yud and a hé and pronounced Ad-nai, but for the coming world, it is read with a yud and a hé and written with a yud and a hé”; פסחים נ'.).
Now to translate the translation:
The Tetragrammaton, the shém Ha-Shem, is so called because it consists of four consonants, the first two of which are yud and hé, to which the Name is often reduced, either as a theophoric suffix in proper names or occasionally as a stand-alone form (cf., e.g., Exodus XV, 3; XVII, 16), for reasons beyond the scope of this essay.
The Jewish practice has always been to respect the Tetragrammaton’s sanctity by not reading it as it is written, but rather substituting Ad-nai, “my L-rd,” for it. (The Name is pronounced as written in the Holy Temple by the Kohén Gadol during the Yom Kippur service, however, since the Temple’s destruction and until it is rebuilt, even that is not done). The prophet is referring to the age when the Temple will be restored, and there will no longer be a dichotomy between the way in which the Tetragrammaton is written and how it is read.
Over the last two weeks, the point has been made that we perceive the uniquely unitary Creator of all in terms of middoth, “measures,” such as din and rahamim, middoth which are associated with the Name Eloqim and the shém Ha-Shem. The latter, the Creator’s actual Name, is associated with hesed both pure and applied, for hesed when amalgamted with din generates rahamim. Hence, the shém Ha-Shem contains and encompasses both middoth, din as well as hesed, in its amalgamted form (עיי' זוה"ק ח"א קי"ט: ניצוצי אורות שם אות א'). These, then, are the middoth mentioned in G-d’s rejoinder to Moshe supra.
If we now reëxamine the promises made to the Patriarchs, an interesting pattern emerges: Avraham: וד' אמר אל אברם כו' את כל הארץ אשר אתה ראה לך אתננה ולזרעך עד עולם (“And Ha-Shem said to Avram... 'All the land which you see, to you shall I give it and to your seed forever'”; XIII, 14-15); Yitzhaq: וירא אליו ד' ויאמר כו' שכן בארץ אשר אמר אליך: גור בארץ הזאת ואהי' עמך ואברכך כי לך ולזרעך אתן את כל הארצת האל וגו' (“And Ha-Shem appeared to him and said... 'Reside in the land which I shall tell you. Dwell in this land and I shall be with you and bless you, for to you and your seed shall I give all these lands....'”; XXVI, 2-3); and Ya‘aqov: והנה ד' נצב עליו ויאמר אני ד' כו' הארץ אשר אתה שכב עלי' לך אתננה ולזרעך: (“And behold, Ha-Shem was positioned on it and said, 'I am Ha-Shem... The land upon which you are lying, to you shall I give it and to your seed”; XXVIII, 13). Note that in every case the Divine promise is made through the shém Ha-Shem, the midda of hesed or rahamim.
With this in mind, consider what G-d told Moshe about the Patriarchs: וארא אל אברהם אל יצחק ואל יעקב בא-ל שד-י ושמי ד' לא נודעתי להם (“And I appeared to Avraham, Yitzhaq, and Ya‘aqov as É-l Shad-dai, and [by] My name, Ha-Shem, I was not known to them”; Exodus VI, 3], prompting Rashi’s comment: לא הודעתי אין כתיב כאן אלא לא נודעתי לא נכרתי להם במדה אמיתי שלי שעלי' נקרא שמי ד' נאמן לאמת דברי שהרי הבטחתי ולא קיימתי (“‘I did not make known’ [lo’ hoda‘ti] is not written here, but ‘I was not known’ [lo’ noda‘ti]’ I was not recognised by them in My true measure for which My name is called Ha-Shem, faithful to actualize My words, for I promised and did not fulfill [it]”). But this appears to contradict the verses quoted above. How could He make such an assertion?
The Birkath Tov remarks on this: דבחינת הוי-ה מרמז על הנהגה אשר הוא למעלה מהטבה כו' לכן נכתב בהוי-ה ונקרא באדנ-י שהוא הנהגה טבעית כדרך האדון שמנהיג עבדיו ואך באמת נכתב הוי-ה וגו' (“that the category of the Tetragrammaton alludes to conduct of affairs [hanhaga] which is supernatural.... Therefore, it is written as the Tetragrammaton but read as Ad-nai, i.e., natural hanhaga, in the manner of a lord [adon] who directs his servants, though in truth it is the Tetragrammaton which is written”; פרשתנו אות י"ד).
This is what G-d means by “appearing as É-l Shad-dai”, literally, “G-d Who established sufficiency,” or as Hazal put it, מי שאמר לעולמו די, “He Who told His world, Enough! [dai]”; וה"ק ח"ג רנ"א: ועוד), i.e., set physical limits, sha- being the Biblical form of the more familiar Mishnaic and modern relative prefix she- (cf., e.g., Genesis VI, 3 and Judges V, 3 for similar usage). It is these limitations, the boundaries of physical existence, which cause us most of the time to perceive Ha-Shem’s supernatural, non-linear, atemporal, non-causal conduct of the universe in terms of our own time-bound, linear causality.
There are a few exceptions, as the Birkath Tov goes on to note, of hanhaga nissith, “miraculous hanhaga”; such an exception, of course, was the Exodus from Egypt, with which G-d was contrasting His conduct with the Patriarchs. Moshe and the bënei Yisra’él would see open, incontrovertible examples of supernatural hanhaga in the blows rained on Egypt before they left, at Yam Suf, at Mt. Sinai, and, indeed, throughout their desert sojourn. Every member of Israel saw these as acts of hesed, in the case of the Exodus itself, rahamim, hesed amalgamated with and ameliorating the earlier din.
The promise reiterated to each of the Patriarchs was equally a matter of hesed, of hanhaga ‘elyona, in each case almost immediately beset by opposition and difficulties, which could only have been perceived as the middath ha-din; yet the Patriarchs did not doubt that Ha-Shem ran the world with the hanhaga ‘elyona associated with the Tetragrammaton, regardless of how it was perceived here below. They did not doubt, did not question, His middoth.
D.
We, too, are generally unable to see the reality of Ha-Shem’s hanhaga nissith, and think instead in linear, natural terms, in terms of din. The prophet comes to assure us that it will not always be thus; one day, our perception of Ha-Shem’s hanhaga ‘elyona will be as it in truth is, and the Tetragrammaton will in that day be pronounced as written.
It is, in part, our mission to bring this day about, whence the custom common to many of us of preceding each qiddush, each establishment of sanctity in this world, with the pronouncement לשם יחוד קב"ה ושכינתי' בדחילו ורחימו וגו' (“For the sake of the unification of the Holy One, Blessed and His Presence [in this world], with awe and love...”).
No comments:
Post a Comment