Va'eira: He who must be named -- how Jewish tradition approaches divine names in the Torah

The chapter of Judaism Reclaimed relating to parashat Va’eira examines the phenomenon and use of the various names of God from the perspective of Jewish tradition. The parashah opens by contrasting the names through which God revealed Himself to Moshe with those used previously in His revelations to the Avot (the Tetragrammaton as opposed to El Shaddai).

Names are commonly used by people as a means of identification, to distinguish between things which are easily confused with each other. This could create the impression that the various names of God in the Torah refer to a multiplicity of gods. The concept of a name in the Torah, however, can be seen to represent a more profound concept. The Torah’s first naming ceremony sees Adam presented with the entire animal kingdom and proceed to issue a name to each species. Ramban teaches that far from labelling the animals for the sake of convenience, Adam was declaring their defining features. In doing so, he also recognized the distinction between mankind and the animals (as the Torah observes: “he found no one to help him who corresponded to him”). The naming of people in Tanach is consistent with this principle, with primary characters generally bearing descriptive appellations. This is particularly the case with the Avot, the twelve sons of Yaakov, and Moshe; Avraham, Sarah, and Yaakov even undergo a change of name to reflect a new dimension of their religious calling. In reference to “Naval,” it is written explicitly that his character matched his name. This parashah’s conversation between God and Moshe, in which God describes how He relates to people by using different names, demonstrates that God’s names too are to be understood in this descriptive manner.

While names of God cannot depict His true essence—a concept which is understood to lie beyond the scope of human comprehension—they can convey the ways in which God allows humans to perceive and relate to Him. In his Kuzari, Rabbi Yehudah HaLevi details the implications of the most common names of God. “Elokim” represents God as revealing Himself to man through the many powerful forces of nature, hence that noun’s plural form. Whereas pagan nations thought of these apparently disparate forces of nature as operating independently and therefore being worthy of worship in their own right, the Jews have been shown that these forces are united in their subordination to God: “You were shown [at Sinai], in order to know, that God is the source and Master of all the forces of nature”—“El Elyon,” or as Yitro says, “gadol…mikol HaElohim.” The four-letter “Tetragrammaton,” by contrast, refers to a “personal” God, who guides people and relates to them providentially. An earlier chapter of Judaism Reclaimed traces the use of these two divine names through the book of Bereishit, focusing on how they reflect and impact on the particular dynamics of the various narratives.

Elokim and the Tetragrammaton, the two principal and complementary names of God, are both found in the opening verse of parashat Va’eira. In response to Moshe’s complaints that the fortunes of the Jewish People had only deteriorated as a result of his divinely-instructed intervention, Elokim tells Moshe “Ani Hashem [I am Tetragrammaton].” Rabbi S. R. Hirsch explains that this sentence contains all that Moshe needs to know: the years of God’s concealment within the forces of nature as Elokim were about to give way to His revelation through the attribute of personal hashgachah and the intervention of the Tetragrammaton in order to rescue the Jews from slavery.

The subsequent verse describes how God had previously related to the Avot through the name El Shaddai rather than the Tetragrammaton. Ramban and Rabbeinu Bachye write that El Shaddai refers to the less dramatic way in which God related personally to the Avot, by manipulating rather than overruling the natural order of the world. The Exodus from Egypt, however, represented a watershed moment in history in which God exhibited His mastery and control over all aspects of Creation. The suspension, on behalf of the Jewish People, of many laws of nature over the next forty years would be recounted faithfully through generations of Jews, allowing the nation to relate forever to its personal and all-powerful God, the God who introduced himself as “Ani Hashem.”

Ultimately, God’s essence is understood to be unified and unchanging, with His different names referring only to how humans perceive and relate to Him in a complex and imperfect world. The prophet Zechariah promises that “bayom hahu”—in the Messianic era where profound knowledge of God will be widespread and prophecy commonplace “God and His name will be One”. This is the promise that all mankind will be able to comprehend how these apparently different Divine attributes and modes of revelation coalesce and derive from a single, unified source.

The chapter of Judaism Reclaimed expands this discussion to examine the names of God used in the earlier passage of the Burning Bush, before contrasting the approaches of Rambam and mystics to the notion that God’s name as used in amulets and mezuzot contains protective powers.

First posted on Facebook 22 January 2020, here.

Cross-currents, TheTorah.com and an ongoing controversy

Recent weeks have seen an explosion of online discussion and debate concerning theTorah.com, a website which describes its purpose as “Torah study informed and enriched by contemporary scholarship”. A provocative article last month in Ha’aretz, an Israeli newspaper, celebrated the primary mission of Torah.com as “introducing religious Jews to contemporary biblical scholarship, which assumes that the Torah was written by people over time and should not be taken literally”. Most controversially, the article repeatedly identified the website’s content and authors as Orthodox – a description which has caused a stir.

This drew strong responses on the Cross-Currents.com website, which comments on Jewish thought from a more a traditional perspective. R’ Avrohom Gordimer argued that “TheTorah.com is a website run by Jews who for the most part refer to themselves as Orthodox, but who have rejected paramount Orthodox beliefs”. What particularly bothered Gordimer, however, was that unlike other clearly non-Orthodox websites which present embrace the conclusions of biblical criticism, “TheTorah.com cleverly masks its true nature, due to the self-proclaimed Orthodoxy of its management and many of its writers”. A more measured follow-up from R’ Yitzchok Adlerstein wrote that “no one has come up with anything resembling “proof” of the non-existence of G-d, or the non-Divinity of the Torah…there are multiple and competing ways of interpreting evidence… What should happen at that point to anyone who had a good relationship with HKBH, is that loyalty to Him should take over.”

This latter point was also the subject of a post by the prominent and prolific YU blogger and social media personality, Steve Gotlib. Gotlib criticises TheTorah.com’s typically condescending contention that “the contemporary educated world approaches the Torah as a composite work”, writing that “the view of the Torah as a composite work is NOT universally held in the academic world. Rabbi Dr. Joshua Berman (himself an Academic Biblical Scholar) has loudly made this point many times and has been actively fighting against this false-portrayal of the academic world”.

One important difference between the articles however is in their proposed solutions. While Gotlib suggests improving the Orthodox educational framework in order to help it rise to such challenges, R’ Adlerstein seeks to reaffirm the prohibition against involvement in study of biblical criticism.

Judaism Reclaimed analyses these two contrasting approaches to thorny theological questions in its introductory chapter (fully available on the JudaismReclaimed.com website), noting they are both reflected in early debates in Jewish thought. I proceed to argue however that, in a modern era of widespread and uncontrollable discussion of Torah fundamentals through blogs, internet forums, and other social media, the option of secluding oneself from troubling questions and viewpoints has become increasingly difficult to maintain. Support for this assertion is drawn from R’ Shimon Schwab, who presented a similar conclusion, even in an earlier, pre-internet generation.

In this atmosphere of open debate and inquiry, refusal to engage with such issues is liable to be interpreted by the perplexed of today’s online generation as a sign of weakness—or worse, as a concession that one has nothing to say and that those who propound views that are hostile to the received Jewish tradition are right.

Rabbi Dr. Joshua Berman wrote a few years back (Q and A on TorahMusings.com) that:

“When a young mind is first introduced to anything relating to the Torah and the ancient Near East by a beloved and trusted rebbe, it sends the message that we need not be afraid. 90% of the battle is already won on this front, and the chances that the student will experience a crisis of faith later on are greatly diminished. We get into trouble precisely when our young men and women…realize that they went through their entire day school career with the wool pulled over their eyes.”

It is in this spirit that Judaism Reclaimed dedicated a number of its chapters to addressing some of these challenges to Orthodox Jewish faith. These chapters are not intended as exhaustive resources, but rather a brief summary of the range of approaches to these matters including thinkers such as Rambam, R’ S. R. Hirsch, Malbim, Netziv, R’ J. B. Soloveitchik, R’ Mordechai Breuer, R' Amnon Bazak and of course from R’ Berman (whose upcoming book on the subject is greatly anticipated).

This is certainly not to suggest that involvement in such study is without risks. Our opening chapter emphasises how such study should be supported and underpinned by the spiritual dimension of Judaism which can provide support when the intellectual route fails to offer immediately satisfactory answer to all challenges.

The final word goes to R’ Soloveitchik, who wrote in an early footnote to Halakhic Man:

“And when the Torah testified that Israel, in the end, would repent out of anguish and agony…it had in mind not only physical pain but also spiritual suffering. The pangs of searching and groping, the tortures of spiritual crises and exhausting treks of the soul purify and sanctify man, cleanse his thoughts and purge them of the husks of superficiality and the dross of vulgarity. Out of these torments there emerges a new understanding of the world, a powerful spiritual enthusiasm that shakes the very foundations of man’s existence. He arises from the agonies, purged and refined, possessed of a new heart and spirit…”

First posted on Facebook 8 December 2019, here.

Torah from Sinai or torah.dotcom? A cursory reading of the two curses

By Daniel Abraham and Shmuel Phillips

Ahead of a couple of days of heavy cheesecake-eating and festive reflections, this post addresses the passage of “tochachah” curses delivered at the conclusion of the sojourn at Sinai. There are in fact two such passages to be found within the Torah’s text, corresponding to both occasions on which the nation sealed a covenant with God. The first, in Leviticus 26, is identified by some commentaries as the “Scroll of the Covenant” that Moshe reads out to the nation at Sinai, while the second (Deuteronomy 28) is delivered as part of Moshe’s series of final speeches on the Plains of Moab.

While these admonitory passages in Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28 bear a number of striking similarities, scholars such as Professor Marc Brettler (link below), argue that the differences between them are so stark, that they reflect the work of independent authors, at different times, each advancing their own theological agenda. As is typical of such claims of multiple authorship of the Bible, a close examination of the evidence cited in support reveals the weak and speculative foundations that these theories are built upon. We will examine some of his primary arguments before showing how his claims can be addressed more simply based on traditional Jewish sources.

Brettler begins by writing, 

“The similar openings ואם לא תשמעו לי – “if you do not heed Me” and some common following terminology should not lull the reader into a false sense that the texts are similar.”

However, this is an attempt to hastily gloss over and dismiss an abundance of highly significant similarities.

Importantly, the phraseology and content of the curses are often not only similar, but in some instances exactly the same. Both sections employ identical terms to describe the guarding and fulfilling God’s mitzvot. Both passages threaten “consumption and fever” “ּ שַּׁחֶ֣פֶת קַּדַּ֔חַת" (Lev. 26:16 and Deut.28:22) – the only times that these terms appear in the entire Bible. The two passages share numerous further strong similarities in content and language. For instance, both threaten that the skies and earth will become iron and copper, both speak of the Israelites being smitten before enemies, enemies eating their produce, land not producing crops, suffering through plagues and sword, sieges leading to famine and eating one’s own children, being exiled and subsequently living in terror with only a few remaining in the land.

In the face of the undeniable parallels of language and content, Brettler offers other avenues of argumentation to make his case:

“The punishing God of Leviticus and Deuteronomy is also depicted differently. Leviticus’s God is anthropomorphic, in contrast to Deuteronomy, which depicts a non-anthropomorphic deity bringing about Israel’s punishment. In Leviticus 26, for example, God sets his face against Israel, וְנָתַתִּ֤י פָנַי֙ בָּכֶ֔ם (v. 17), walks with them, וְהָלַכְתִּ֧י (v. 24), and ultimately decides not to smell their offerings, וְלֹ֣א אָרִ֔יחַ בְּרֵ֖יחַ נִיחֹֽחֲכֶֽם (v. 31). This typifies P and H, but not D—beginning already in the Priestly Genesis 1:27, humanity is created in the divine image.”

However, the analysis of the very same text by celebrated source critic Richard Elliot Friedman produces a conclusion which is diametrically opposed to that of Brettler. In Who Wrote the Bible? Friedman states emphatically:

“in P there are no blatant anthropomorphisms. In JE, God walks in the garden of Eden, God personally makes Adam and Eve’s clothes. Personally closes Noah’s ark, smells Noah’s sacrifice, wrestles with Jacob, and speaks to Moses out of the burning bush. None of these things are in P.”

In truth, the extreme positions staked out by both Brettler and Friedman are tenuous and mistaken. There are ample examples of anthropomorphisms in both the supposed “P” and “D” documents (see footnote below).

Brettler proceeds to contrast the nature of the covenant as depicted in the two passages:

“in Deut 28, Israel fades away—as a result of Israel breaking the covenant, God is released from any obligations toward Israel, and then are destroyed, while Lev 26 suggests that this is impossible, for the covenant always remains in force.”

Key to Brettler’s assertion here is his rendering of the root “שָּׁמֵ֖ד” as implying a total and complete destruction of the Jewish people. Such an interpretation can be challenged on two counts. First it requires the Curses of Deuteronomy 28 to be read in total isolation from the two immediately following chapters which appear to contextualise (and even reference) these curses, reassuring Israel that no permanent destruction will ever be inflicted on it.

Secondly, a further passage – Deuteronomy 4:25-31 – features a brief summary of the curses from both Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28. In this summary we see the word “שָּׁמֵ֖ד” employed in a context which unambiguously demonstrates that the threatened destruction will not be absolute or permanent. While the first verse states

“I call heaven and earth this day to witness against you that you shall soon perish from the land that you are crossing the Jordan to possess; you shall not long endure in it, but shall be utterly wiped out (שמד).”

This is immediately followed by a reassurance that the Jewish people will in fact repent, and eventually return to their land:

“For the Lord your God is a compassionate God: He will not fail you nor will He let you perish; He will not forget the covenant which He made on oath with your fathers.”

As opposed to Brettler’s fragile theorising, Judaism Reclaimed analyses the stylistic and dynamic distinctions between the two passages of Curses based on the insights of Rabbi S. R. Hirsch.

The language used to describe the sinners in the Leviticus Curses — “You have acted casually (bekeri) with me” and “break my covenant”— portrays a people which fails to recognise its relationship with God and despises His commandments. In particular, the oft-repeated term of keri (behaviour which ignores God’s existence) connotes a world view in which there is no practical role for God. The Torat Kohanim midrash strikes a note that is consistent with this tone, tracing through this passage a gradual religious decline that eventually leads to total 'kofar be'ikar' atheism.

God's response to His nation’s complete rejection of Him, in keeping with the principle of 'middah keneged middah' (“measure for measure”), is further disassociation: “I too will proceed to deal ‘casually’ (bekeri) with you”. This Leviticus passage was one of the last passages taught at Sinai before the nation began its journey towards the Promised Land.

In his commentary to parashat Beshalach, R' Hirsch demonstrates how the primary lesson being conveyed to the Jews at this early stage of their desert journey was the recognition that God's Providence covers the provision of everyday necessities such as food and water. This Providence is not limited to extraordinary national moments such as the Exodus and splitting of the sea. The corresponding passage of Curses in Leviticus therefore focuses on God’s response to the lack of belief in His involvement in everyday life and the nation’s regression towards complete denial of God.

By the time we reach Deuteronomy however, the nation has spent 40 years traversing the desert, absorbing lessons of Divine Providence. Moshe’s final lectures, which are recorded in the book of Devarim, are focused on preparing them for the challenges that lie ahead in the land of Israel: these challenges include implementation and observance of the Torah in a new setting where they will be surrounded by the allurements of Canaanite paganism. The Curses of Deuteronomy 28 contain no radical references to revocation of covenants: the nation’s relationship with God is never questioned. Rather, the focus is on the people listening to God and observing His specific commandments.

Correspondingly, the punishments listed in this passage make no mention of God repudiating His covenant with the Jewish People. Rather this far longer list of specific punishments is more nuanced and detailed, possibly to correspond in a “measure for measure” manner to the breaking of specific commandments.

Most telling, however, is the contrast between the conclusions of these two tochachot. The Mount Sinai passage, laced with ominous forewarnings that God will nullify His covenant with the Jewish people, needs the immediate and powerful reassurance that God will never actually forget His promises to the forefathers and their descendants. The second tochachah on the other hand, despite its dramatic threats of destruction and annihilation, does not insinuate that God's relationship with the Jews will ever end. No verses of consolation are therefore contained within it – though they can be inferred from subsequent passages within Deuteronomy.

As opposed to carving up and attributing the Torah’s text to multiple authors and agendas, this approach demonstrates that by being attuned and sensitive to the Torah’s internal dynamic and message one can understand apparent idiosyncrasies and inconsistencies as reflecting different stages of the Jewish people’s relationship with God.

Original Article by Marc Brettler here.

Selected examples of Anthropomorphism in Deuteronomy:

• Arm and hand: Deut 4:34, 5:15
• Finger: Deut 9:10
• Eyes: Deut 11:129
• God walking: Deut 23:15
• God hears and sees: Deut. 26:6
• Face: Deut 31:17, 18

First posted 16 May 2021, here.