"Not by means of an angel, saraf or shaliach ..."

This line, which appears both in the Pesach Haggadah and Sifre to Devarim, appears to be conveying the idea that the smiting of all Egyptian (human and animal) firstborns was performed directly by God himself. Taking a step back and analyzing this idea in the context of Rambam’s teachings on the subjects of angels, miracles and providence, I believe that the midrash may contain a very profound insight.

The nature of biblical miracles and the extent to which the plagues which struck Egypt can be explained as rare and unlikely yet fully natural occurrences is a popular subject of debate in certain circles. Rambam, in the Moreh Nevuchim, seems to cater for both possibilities.

Some fascinating and surprisingly overlooked chapters near the start of the second section of the Moreh describe angels as the agents through which God delegates the overseeing and implementation of His Will in the world. More specifically, each rule of nature – which represents an aspect of the divine will – is guided by a specific angel (“no angel performs more than one task”). As part of his discussion, Rambam introduces the example of God’s destruction of Sodom – which Avraham perceived prophetically to be the work of angels – to show how God’s providential will can be seen to operate through nature.

What is particularly fascinating about the example of Sodom, is that it involves the resolution of a conflict between different aspects of God’s will: the angel dispatched to destroy Sodom needed to co-ordinate with the angel sent to save Lot. Here, writes Rambam (2:7, supported by a teshuva from Sherira Gaon), we find the notion of limited angelic discretion and free will – not as to whether to obey or disobey God’s instruction but rather as to how God’s will should best be implemented.

The angel is clearly unable to overturn Sodom while Lot is still inside as that would be an act of disobedience to the divine will: “Hasten, flee there, for I will not be able to do anything until you arrive there” (Bereishit 19:22).

However, when Lot believes that he is unable to make it all the way to the designated mountain, the angel is authorized to amend the plans and save a small, less wicked town on the outskirts that is within Lot’s range: “I have granted you this matter too not to overturn this city that you have mentioned” (19:21).

Awakening from his prophetic dream, Avraham looks out over the plains of Sodom and sees smoke rising. Lot, as we are about to be told in great detail, has been saved alongside two of his daughters. God’s will has been effectively implemented through the angelic forces of nature – whether by asteroid or another geological phenomenon. Anyone lacking Avraham’s prophetic insight into the providential dynamics at play behind the scene might have considered this to have been a fully natural event.

In contrast with this more regular modus operandi of God’s will being implemented through the angelic agency of nature, the Rambam introduces a separate category both in the second section of the Moreh and in his commentary to Avot. There he interprets a midrash to be teaching that “God made conditions with all that he created during the six days of Creation” so that, on specific historical occasions, part of creation would behave in an abnormal or unnatural way:

“Not only with the sea did God make conditions [that it would split before Israel] but with all that was created in the six days of creation… I commanded the sea to split and the oven not to harm Chananiah, Mishael and Azariah, and the lions that they should not harm Daniel and the fish that it spit out Yonah. And comparisons can be made to other instances”. [2:29]

While Rambam does not comment as to how many of the ten plagues might belong within this category of divine conditions, it would seem that the midrashic teaching included in the Haggadah is making just this very point regarding the killing of the firstborns:

“And God took us out of Egypt”: Not by means of an angel, and not by means of a saraf and not by means of a messenger. Rather the Holy One Blessed be He himself in his glory…as it says “And I passed through the land of Egypt on that night” – I and not an angel…”.

The Haggadah is at pains to point out that this final plague, at the very least, was not performed via the providential format of God’s will being implemented discreetly through the angels of nature. Rather it was God himself who, presumably as understood by Rambam, would have foreseen and integrated such an occurrence during the period of creation of the world.

For comments and discussion of this post on Facebook, click here.

Tefillin: a Sinaitic sign with an Egyptian origin?

While it is not uncommon to find numerous rationales being suggested for biblical commandments, the sheer range and diverse nature of the explanations offered for the mitzvah of Tefillin is quite remarkable. Tefillin is a highly valued ritual for the mystics – Talmud Reclaimed shows how the mitzvah was once a primary battleground between traditional Talmudic halachists and those who sought to integrate the Zohar’s teachings into mainstream Jewish practice. For many mystics, the practice of wearing two types of Tefillin – Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam – is not intended merely to ensure correct halachic practice, but rather to maximize the protective potential and divine energy flows that Tefillin are understood to promote.

Viewed through the perspective of peshat, this week’s parashah provides a far simpler psychological approach to understanding Tefillin:

“And it shall be to you as a sign upon your hand and as a remembrance between your eyes, in order that the law of the Lord shall be in your mouth, for with a mighty hand the Lord took you out of Egypt.” (Shemot 13:9)

This verse, which appears in the midst of many commandments intended to commemorate the Exodus, ties the mitzvah of Tefillin into the greater goal of recalling God’s miraculous rescue of our nation from Egypt. Is there anything specific to Tefillin that allows it to fulfil this function?

One fascinating idea that I read in an essay published several years ago in the Habura Pesach journal (which is currently being redacted, here) links Tefillin to symbolic practices in ancient Egypt which describes how

“In artistic depictions of subsequent campaigns, the Pharaoh is depicted adorned in sacred bracelets as he charges into battle against his enemies. These particular objects, often worn in the New Kingdom period by Pharaohs, were blessed in the names of various deities, especially Hathor who appeared in many stelae of Ramesside military propaganda as a protector of Pharaoh.

Secondly, another important area to look for parallels for Tefillin is on the head of the Pharaoh. In battle, Ramesses II was often depicted wearing the common ritual item known as the Uraeus, a talisman shaped like the snake goddess Wadjet. Commonly placed in both the Pharaonic headdress, known as the nemes, and the Pharaonic battle helmet, the kherpes, the Uraeus acted as a talisman representing the divine mission of the Pharaoh, acting as the emanation of the divine on the earth. These objects would act as conduits between the ruler and the deities of Egypt, ensuring continued divine favor for the country.”

If this is all true, Tefillin could be another manifestation of a perspective popularized recently by Rabbi Dr Joshua Berman’s Ani Maamin, which sees many aspects of biblical symbolism and phraseology as deliberately utilizing an Egyptian style in order to maximize the ability of the Torah to communicate its messages to those who would first receive it. There seems to be something deeply ingrained within human nature which motivates people to publicise their allegiances and political views – think Star of David necklaces and yellow hostage pins. In light of the historical evidence quoted above, the Israelites would most likely have reflected this by attaching symbols to their arm and head.

This insight into ancient Egyptian practice may also impact on another significant debate among Rishonim explored in Talmud Reclaimed. The primary topic of the first section of the book is to investigate which aspects of the Oral Law are understood to have been transmitted immutably from Sinai, and which would have been developed by the sages and Sanhedrin in subsequent generations.

The details of the mitzvah of Tefillin represents a fascinating example in this discussion,

Two manuscripts of Ibn Ezra's commentary on the book of Shemot have reached us. In what is believed to be the earlier commentary, Ibn Ezra presents two possible interpretations of the words "And it shall be for a sign upon your hand and for totafot between your eyes". The first, which is consistent with Rashbam's position, understands the words metaphorically, requiring the Exodus to be constantly remembered as if it were written on our heads and arms. The second possible interpretation - that these signs refer to the commandment to physically don tefillin - was adopted by the sages. Therefore, continues Ibn Ezra, the initial explanation was annulled.

In Ibn Ezra's second manuscript, however, which is understood to have been produced later in his life, he appears to have reconsidered this position, simply stating "that which the sages have transmitted to us – to write parshiyot – is the truth". This implies that he understands the commandment to don tefillin as the original “true” meaning of the verse rather than a later addition.

Rambam, meanwhile, does not display any doubt on the matter, stating emphatically in the full version of his 13 Principles of Faith that the design of tefillin that we wear today “is itself the design that God communication to Moshe”.

If the Egyptian context cited above is indeed relevant, it would seem likely that the biblical verse does refer to an actual act of wearing Tefillin as a sign upon the body – as the law was transmitted to us by the sages. We might add that, given the fact that the early Israelites would have been deeply immersed in Egyptian culture, the Torah’s text did not need to elaborate in great detail as to what the “Totaphot” consisted of. While this might lend support to Rambam’s position that Tefillin as an actual symbolic attachment was transmitted from Sinai, it still remains to be understood why he believes that its specific forms of black boxes would have been part of this original Sinaitic teaching.

Find out more about Talmud Reclaimed: Philosophy and Theology in the Torah at www.TalmudReclaimed.com

For comments and discussion of this post on Facebook, click here.