Various encounters with God and with ‘angels’ are recorded in the Torah. According to Rambam, all the Divine communications received by the prophets of the Bible, and all their encounters with God and angels occurred during a Divinely induced vision or dream[8] - except for the case of Moses. Moses is the only prophet who could actually ‘speak directly’ to God.
A spiritual being which is thereby not physical would not have physical properties. It would not have physical meaning to state that a non-physical entity walked somewhere or picked up something, or said something, since all these imply a physical structure existing in spacetime, the existence of friction, resistance to motion etc. Similarly, if it were not physical the entity could not be said to emit photons or bounce them off itself, and therefore it could not be said with physical meaning that it could be ‘seen’. And, since it cannot be seen or measured or felt by any physical means, it would perhaps be meaningless to say that it was there - in any physical sense of ‘being’ - but simply could not be seen.
An ‘angel’ in the divine context means “messenger of God”. Of course it would be possible for God to create a physical being and send it to someone, who would then see it, however an angel is presumed to be a spiritual entity. Indeed according to Rambam’s interpretation it is not necessarily a being, but can be a law of nature created by God, which is now carrying out God’s purpose; an angel can also be a being, but non-physical: presumably an angel would not exist in a physical sense. According to these interpretations, it would not have physical meaning to state that the angel walked somewhere or said something and if someone were to ‘see’ an angel, it would presumably be due to an image which was formed directly in their minds by God, rather than by physical means. This would mean that the person would experience a vision of the angel in an internal reality which would not correspond to a physical entity outside the viewer - there would not be a physical angel ‘out there’.
[[9]Of course it may be possible for an image to form in our brains which appears to us as though it is in the external world. For example when we sleep, or if our brains are stimulated by electrodes. If the mind is a non-physical entity affiliated with the brain[10], images can form in it perhaps without any physical stimulus.[11]]
According to Ramban, all those who are recorded in the Torah as having seen angels, actually beheld these angels in a (divinely induced) dream or a vision, even where it is not stated that this is the case. However, he disagreed with Rambam’s more radical statement that all the events related in that context occurred in the (divinely induced) dream or vision.
The entire episode of the speaking of Balaam’s donkey was a vision according to Rambam. Even when the Torah records long dialogues, and seemingly physical events occur, when they are within the context of a prophetic encounter they refer to mental events in the mind of the prophet.
Rambam also states that Ya’akov[Jacob]’s wrestling with the mysterious stranger - the angel - occurred in a prophetic vision or dream. This despite the fact that Ya’akov had a limp after the angel damaged his ‘nasheh’ sinew during the struggle. Thus a Biblical narrative in which an event occurs, and then seems to have an effect later, may nevertheless refer to a mental event.
He states further that even angels seen by two people at the same time - as with Manoakh and his wife, parents of Samson - were seen in a dream/vision by both simultaneously.
Rambam essentially makes two crucial points. One, that regarding any Biblically recorded prophetic encounter with God or angels other than by Moses, the encounter took place during a dream or vision, regardless of whether or not it is specifically stated that it took place in a dream or vision, and regardless of what physical activity is reported as part of the encounter.
Secondly, that if in any section of the Torah there is a mention of an interaction of man - other than Moses - with God or with an angel, then the entire episode occured in a vision.
Rambam stresses that:
“In some cases the account begins by stating that the prophet saw an angel; in others the account apparently introduces a human being, who ultimately is shown to be an angel; but it makes no difference, for even if the fact that an angel has been heard is mentioned only at the end, you may rest satisfied that the whole account from the beginning describes a prophetic vision. In such visions, a prophet either sees God who speaks to him, as will be explained by us, or he sees an angel who speaks to him, or he hears someone speaking to him without seeing the speaker, or he sees a man who speaks to him, and learns afterwards that the speaker was an angel.”
Rambam then mentions the cases of Abraham’s three visitors, Jacob’s wrestling with the ‘man’, and Bilaam’s encounter, and some others. He then states:
“The instances quoted may serve as an illustration of those passages which I do not mention.”
Ramban objected to the thesis of Rambam that all the events surrounding the prophecy occured in a dream or vision, and attempted to bring proofs that it was not so.
The sages in the Talmud had drawn attention to the fact that the Torah distinguishes between the level of prophecy of Moshe and that of all other prophets. They said that while all other prophets saw as ‘through a glass darkly’, Moshe Rabbenu saw clearly.
Rambam stated that the essential difference between the prophecies of Moshe and other prophets was that all of their prophecies, including all the related actions, occured in a vision rather than in actual external physical reality, whereas Ramban stated that this was not so, and that the difference was simply as stated by the Sages - a difference involving clarity. According to Ramban, the levels of prophecy are indicated by the wording relating the encounter, for example the ‘seeing of God’ being of a higher level than the ‘seeing of an angel’.
Ramban poses several questions which he hopes will convince the reader that indeed the events occured in external reality rather than in a vision. We present them below along with possible answers to Ramban’s points.
Genesis 18, where the story of Abraham’s three angelic visitors is told, begins as follows: “And God appeared to him in the plains of Mamre as he sat in the doorway of the tent. And he raised his eyes and saw, and lo three men..”. Rambam states that the words “And God appeared to him..” are a general introduction to the vision of the three “men” which followed.
Ramban asks: if it was a vision of angels rather than of God, why does the Torah say “God appeared to him”. Ramban therefore infers that there was a vision of God, about which we are told nothing other than that it occured, and that following this, three angels in the guise of men appeared to him in external reality. However, Rambam clearly states that the Torah uses the phraseology “God appeared” to describe a certain type of vision - even a vision in which God did not appear. Instead one could say that “God appeared to him” means that God caused this vision of “men” - who were angels - to arise in Abraham’s mind.
Furthermore, in the case of Jacob’s struggle with the angel Ramban would presumeably agree that it was not God who wrestled with Jacob, even though Jacob states afterwards “...for I have seen God face to face..”.
Ramban also objects that the events related in the story - the eating, and the baking of cakes, and so on - are superfluous if it was a vision, since the angels were there to merely give a message, and the vision could have been given simply. If on the other hand the events occured as related in external reality, then they describe the normal course of events which would occur upon the arrival of three visitors. Therefore the fact that these events not directly related to the message are included in the story indicate that it was not a vision, which would have included only the message.
We answer as follows: Indeed the message could have been given in a short vision including only the message and no three travelling men who must be offered food and so on. This in fact would seemingly have been preferable also to the complicated business of sending three angels in the guise of men, and having Abraham put in the position of having to offer them hospitality, feeding them and so on.
The issue then is why the long complicated method was preferred rather than a short giving of the messeage - why the giving of the message is long and full of seemingly irrelevant matters rather than a short and to the point vision. Clearly then these events - whether they occured in a vision or in external reality - must have had a purpose.
The passage stresses that it was during the strongest heat of the day, and it is known that Abraham was subjected to a number of tests by God, so perhaps the events were meant to test Abraham’s hospitality during his recuperation from the circumcision, and in the heat of the Middle Eastern day. Whatever the reason, the events must have had a purpose, and are not irrelevant. Rather, there was a reason that God wished Abraham to be confronted with that situation then, at the time of the giving of the message. And, the simplest manner of arranging a situation which is designed to test certain responses is to stage it as a vision, so that no extraneous matters interfere. [12]
Ramban also objects that if all was a vision, then the actions which the Torah ascribes to Sarah - preparing cakes and laughing at the prediction of the angels that she would bear a son - were actually not her actions, but occured instead in Abraham’s vision.
However, we can perhaps answer as follows: Some visions are joint ones - as that of Manoakh and his wife, who both saw the same angel. And in the case before us, there are various indications that this was a joint vision of Abraham and Sarah.
Sarah heard the words the angels spoke to Abraham outside even while she was in the tent; she laughed inside herself upon hearing the message of Isaac’s impending birth, and this was immediately known to Abraham, for God asks him why she laughed; and Sarah immediately responded to this message although it was from God to Abraham. These indicate that for at least some part, the vision was a joint one, and therefore Sarah did indeed commit the actions ascribed to her - to the same extent as Abraham commited the actions ascribed to him.
Ramban also states that the limping of Jacob would be inexplicable if the injury was received in a vision.
However, it may of course be that the limping was also in the vision. In any case, a law was given forever to the descendants of Yakov not to eat the ‘nasheh’ sinew of an animal. If the limping was in a dream, then it is very odd that Yakov’s descendants had to follow a precept based on a dream event.
On the other hand, the reason for the precept itself is totally incomprehensible - it makes no more human-sense to keep it if the limp was real than if it was in the vision. . If the limping was not in a dream, then how did the dream of a struggle cause him to limp?
Perhaps the statement in the passage that the limp disappeared when the sun shone can be interpreted as an indication that the limp may have been caused by the mental anguish of the dream-struggle [See also Abarbanel][13].
Another example of a physical change which seemingly occurred during a dream, or due to events in a dream, relates to King Solomon’s dream wherein he requests and is granted wisdom - and awakes to find himself indeed much wiser.
Essentially however, it is clear that in both these cases the physical effect is due to something other than actual physical interaction. It would not be explicable for a touch on Jacob’s thigh to make him limp, especially considering that Jacob was fit enough to wrestle all night long. Similarly, Solomon’s new wisdom was clearly not an ordinary natural physical change.
Therefore it is no more surprising that the physical changes to Jacob and Solomon should occur as the result of a dream or vision than if they were to occur during an actual physical encounter.
“...for I have seen God face to face and my life is preserved.” Jacob’s mention that he was yet alive after his experience imply surprise or thankfulness, as though he had reason to believe that he should have died. Ramban saw this as an indication that the struggle occured in external reality, since a vision of God in any form would not carry any danger - after all his father and grandfather had had such visions and lived. This surprise would therefore seemingly be appropriate only if the event occured in external reality, where a real physical danger could have arisen. If on the other hand it were a vision, then Jacob would not have reason to believe he could have died.
However, we can answer as follows: The fact that an angel would physically harm him is in itself unusual. It is also clear that actually Jacob was the victor in the encounter - which implies that had he lost, he might have been killed. Indeed, when Jacob realizes that it was an angel he fought with rather than a human, and that this angel actually caused him physical damage, he realized that had he not succeeded, the angel might well have killed him.
Ramban also objects that if the visit of the three angels to Abraham was all a vision, then it would follow that the entire account of what occurred in Sodom concerning Lot, his family, and the inhabitants of Sodom, was all a vision - including even the destruction of the city itself. Ramban then says that Rambam himself believed that the events occurred, but that the conversations all took place in a vision.
It is not so much relevant here to discuss whether or not this latter statement is a correct interpretation of Rambam’s position on the matter. We can however state that the fact that the ‘vision’ approach implies that the entire Sodom account occurred in a vision is not in itself a disproof of the validity of the approach. Nevertheless, there is no need to go this far. We can instead say that the Lot story was indeed a vision, but that the city of Sodom was destroyed, and Lot and his daughters saved. The passages from the end of God’s dialogue with Abraham - where Abraham is pleading for the rescuing of Sodom - until the end of the story, read [in rough translation and in condensed form]:
“And Abraham said ‘Perhaps ten righteous men will be found [In Sodom]. And God said ‘[If there are ten] I will not destroy it, for their sake’. And the Lord went when He finished speaking to Abraham, and Abraham returned to his place. And the two angels came to Sodom..Lot...the people of Sodom surrounded the house....and the angels took Lot and his wife and two daughters out of the city....And God poured brimstone and fire...destroyed the cities... Lot’s wife.. a pillar of salt. And Abraham arose in the morning at the place where he stood with the face of God. And he looked out at Sodom and Gommorrah and ...the smoke was rising like from a furnace. And as the Lord destroyed [Sodom..] He remembered Abraham....and God sent Lot from out of the midst of the destruction.....and his two daughters with him..”
According to the Abarbanel, the statement “And Abraham arose in the morning at the place where he stood in the presence of God” indicates the end of the prophetic encounter begun with “And God appeared to Abraham in the plains of Mamre”. That is, that the entire Sodom account until here was a vision.
Indeed, the passages can perhaps be considered as being redundant if the events did not occur in a vision, since the destruction of the cities and the saving of Lot and his family are described twice, as can be seen from the passages quoted above. If however Abraham experienced a vision from the appearance of the three angels until the turning of Lot’s wife to salt, perhaps a vision shared by Lot and his family or others as well, then the passages are not redundant.
The vision then serves as a moral challenge, to test the individuals involved, and then based on their actions and words, their fates are decided. For example, as with Abraham, Lot proved exceptionally hospitable, even risking his life. Lot’s wife proved unable to follow the command of the angels. The daughters were seemingly willing to be sacrificed to save the angels, and the sons-in-law scoffed at the whole thing. So, Lot and his daughters proved themselves worthy of living. And then, we are indeed told at the end of this moral-test vision, after the description of these moral tests, and after the destruction of Sodom, and the escape of Lot, his wife, and his daughters, after the turning of the wife to a pillar of salt, that:
“as the Lord destroyed [Sodom..] He remembered Abraham....and God sent Lot from out of the midst of the destruction.....and his two daughters with him..”
The visions/dreams of a prophet can be interpreted as a means by which God can test the prophet’s moral strength - creating a complete mental scenario in the prophet’s mind, in order to test the response. The prophet at the time would not be in an ordinary sleep state. Instead he is as fully in control of his mental characteristics as he would be if he were wide awake. He can exert his will, and use his intelligence, exactly as he would were he awake[14]. The response may be purely mental, but it is exactly that - Man’s deepest intention - which interests God. For God to test someone, there is no need to put the person into an actual physical situation. Instead, a complete scenario is constructed and inserted into the person’s mental awareness in such a way that it seems perfectly real, yet allows his psyche, intelligence, and will to operate as though he were awake.
In an ordinary dream , it is the subconscious which constructs the dream-scenarios, and the subconscious which reacts. In the case of a prophetic dream or vision, the dream/vision scenario is directly implanted by God, and it is the entire waking faculties of the subject which controls the reaction.
The most authoritative voice of Jewish Traditional philosophical beliefs has been that of Maimonides, whose views have reigned for the last eight hundred years. Seven hundred years before Darwin, Maimonides wrote:
“..the account given in Scripture of the creation is not, as is generally believed, intended to be in all its parts literal.”[1] “The literal meaning of the words might lead us to conceive corrupt ideas and to form false opinions about God, or even to entirely abandon and reject the principles of our Faith.”
He states categorically that according to Tradition, the Garden of Eden account is allegorical. Of course that they are meant allegorically does not mean that they are trivial stories, or “untrue”. R. Crescas, in his commentary on Rambam’s statement that the creation account is at least partially allegory[2], states:
“ Allegories....means that the mention in Scripture of the Garden of Eden, the Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowledge, the description of Adam, his initial condition and what he later became, the serpent, Eve, the naming of Adam’s sons Cain and Abel, and all that long narrative, all refer to extremely deep matters which are inaccessible to the common run of humanity and were therefore given in the form of allegory.” [3].
Various encounters with God and with ‘angels’ are recorded in the Torah. According to Rambam, all the Divine communications received by the prophets of the Bible, and all their encounters with God and angels occurred during a Divinely induced vision or dream[4] - except for the case of Moses. Moses is the only prophet who could actually ‘speak directly’ to God.
When we see an entity, it is because photons (light) are emitted by that entity, or bounce off the entity - actually, are absorbed and then emitted by the entity - and then these photons enter our eye, and stimulate an electrical signal to our brain[5]. An entity which is not physical to the extent that it can bounce or emit photons cannot be physically seen.
Of course it may be possible for an image to form in our brains which appears to us as though it is in the external world. For example when we sleep, or if our brains are stimulated by electrodes. If the mind is a non-physical entity affiliated with the brain[6], images can form in it perhaps without any physical stimulus.
An angel is, according to one interpretation, a messenger of God; according to Rambam’s interpretation it is not necessarily a being, but can be e.g. a law of nature created by God, which is now carrying out God’s purpose; an angel can also be a non-physical being, and therefore presumably if an angel existed, it would not exist in a physical sense. According to these interpretations, it would not have physical meaning to state that the angel walked somewhere or picked up something, or said something, since all these imply a physical structure existing in spacetime. Similarly, the angel if it were not physical - could not be said to emit or bounce off photons, and therefore it could not be said with physical meaning that the angel could be ‘seen’. And, since it cannot be seen or measured or felt by any physical means, it would perhaps be meaningless to say that the angel was there - in any physical sense of ‘being’ - but simply could not be seen.
Therefore if someone were to ‘see’ an angel, it would presumably be due to an image which was formed directly in their minds by some spiritual agency, rather than by physical means. This would mean that the person would see the angel, but this vision of the angel would be an internal reality, and would not correspond to a physical entity outside the viewer - there would not be an angel ‘out there’. [7]
Of course it would be possible for God to create a physical being and send it to someone, who would then see it. This however would be a physical being and not an angel, if an angel is defined to be a spiritual being. If however ‘angel’ means simply ‘messenger of God’, then it would be possible to see physical angels of course.
According to Ramban, all those who are recorded in the Torah as having seen angels, actually beheld these angels in a (divinely induced) dream or a vision, even where it is not stated that this is the case. However, he disagreed with Rambam’s more radical statement that all the events related in that context occurred in the (divinely induced) dream or vision.
The entire episode of the speaking of Balaam’s donkey was a vision according to Rambam. Even when the Torah records long dialogues, and seemingly physical events occur, when they are within the context of a prophetic encounter they refer to mental events in the mind of the prophet.
Rambam also states that Ya’akov[Jacob]’s wrestling with the mysterious stranger - the angel - occurred in a prophetic vision or dream. This despite the fact that Ya’akov had a limp after the angel damaged his ‘nasheh’ sinew during the struggle. Thus a Biblical narrative in which an event occurs, and then seems to have an effect later, may nevertheless refer to a mental event.
He states further that even angels seen by two people at the same time - as with Manoakh and his wife, parents of Samson - were seen in a dream/vision by both simultaneously.
Rambam essentially makes two crucial points. One, that regarding any Biblically recorded prophetic encounter with God or angels other than by Moses, the encounter took place during a dream or vision, regardless of whether or not it is specifically stated that it took place in a dream or vision, and regardless of what physical activity is reported as part of the encounter.
Secondly, that if in any section of the Torah there is a mention of an interaction of man - other than Moses - with God or with an angel, then the entire episode occured in a vision.
Rambam stresses that:
“In some cases the account begins by stating that the prophet saw an angel; in others the account apparently introduces a human being, who ultimately is shown to be an angel; but it makes no difference, for even if the fact that an angel has been heard is mentioned only at the end, you may rest satisfied that the whole account from the beginning describes a prophetic vision. In such visions, a prophet either sees God who speaks to him, as will be explained by us, or he sees an angel who speaks to him, or he hears someone speaking to him without seeing the speaker, or he sees a man who speaks to him, and learns afterwards that the speaker was an angel.”
Rambam then mentions the cases of Abraham’s three visitors, Jacob’s wrestling with the ‘man’, and Bilaam’s encounter, and some others. He then states:
“The instances quoted may serve as an illustration of those passages which I do not mention.”
Ramban objected to the thesis of Rambam that all the events surrounding the prophecy occured in a dream or vision, and attempted to bring proofs that it was not so.
The sages in the Talmud had drawn attention to the fact that the Torah distinguishes between the level of prophecy of Moshe and that of all other prophets. They said that while all other prophets saw as ‘through a glass darkly’, Moshe Rabbenu saw clearly.
Rambam stated that the essential difference between the prophecies of Moshe and other prophets was that all of their prophecies, including all the related actions, occured in a vision rather than in actual external physical reality, whereas Ramban stated that this was not so, and that the difference was simply as stated by the Sages - a difference involving clarity. According to Ramban, the levels of prophecy are indicated by the wording relating the encounter, for example the ‘seeing of God’ being of a higher level than the ‘seeing of an angel’.
Ramban poses several questions which he hopes will convince the reader that indeed the events occured in external reality rather than in a vision. We present them below along with possible answers to Ramban’s points.
Genesis 18, where the story of Abraham’s three angelic visitors is told, begins as follows: “And God appeared to him in the plains of Mamre as he sat in the doorway of the tent. And he raised his eyes and saw, and lo three men..”. Rambam states that the words “And God appeared to him..” are a general introduction to the vision of the three “men” which followed.
Ramban asks: if it was a vision of angels rather than of God, why does the Torah say “God appeared to him”. Ramban therefore infers that there was a vision of God, about which we are told nothing other than that it occured, and that following this, three angels in the guise of men appeared to him in external reality. However, Rambam clearly states that the Torah uses the phraseology “God appeared” to describe a certain type of vision - even a vision in which God did not appear. Instead one could say that “God appeared to him” means that God caused this vision of “men” - who were angels - to arise in Abraham’s mind.
Furthermore, in the case of Jacob’s struggle with the angel Ramban would presumeably agree that it was not God who wrestled with Jacob, even though Jacob states afterwards “...for I have seen God face to face..”.
Ramban also objects that the events related in the story - the eating, and the baking of cakes, and so on - are superfluous if it was a vision, since the angels were there to merely give a message, and the vision could have been given simply. If on the other hand the events occured as related in external reality, then they describe the normal course of events which would occur upon the arrival of three visitors. Therefore the fact that these events not directly related to the message are included in the story indicate that it was not a vision, which would have included only the message.
We answer as follows: Indeed the message could have been given in a short vision including only the message and no three travelling men who must be offered food and so on. This in fact would seemingly have been preferable also to the complicated business of sending three angels in the guise of men, and having Abraham put in the position of having to offer them hospitality, feeding them and so on.
The issue then is why the long complicated method was preferred rather than a short giving of the messeage - why the giving of the message is long and full of seemingly irrelevant matters rather than a short and to the point vision. Clearly then these events - whether they occured in a vision or in external reality - must have had a purpose.
The passage stresses that it was during the strongest heat of the day, and it is known that Abraham was subjected to a number of tests by God, so perhaps the events were meant to test Abraham’s hospitality during his recuperation from the circumcision, and in the heat of the Middle Eastern day. Whatever the reason, the events must have had a purpose, and are not irrelevant. Rather, there was a reason that God wished Abraham to be confronted with that situation then, at the time of the giving of the message. And, the simplest manner of arranging a situation which is designed to test certain responses is to stage it as a vision, so that no extraneous matters interfere. [8]
Ramban also objects that if all was a vision, then the actions which the Torah ascribes to Sarah - preparing cakes and laughing at the prediction of the angels that she would bear a son - were actually not her actions, but occured instead in Abraham’s vision.
However, we can perhaps answer as follows: Some visions are joint ones - as that of Manoakh and his wife, who both saw the same angel. And in the case before us, there are various indications that this was a joint vision of Abraham and Sarah.
Sarah heard the words the angels spoke to Abraham outside even while she was in the tent; she laughed inside herself upon hearing the message of Isaac’s impending birth, and this was immediately known to Abraham, for God asks him why she laughed; and Sarah immediately responded to this message although it was from God to Abraham. These indicate that for at least some part, the vision was a joint one, and therefore Sarah did indeed commit the actions ascribed to her - to the same extent as Abraham commited the actions ascribed to him.
Ramban also states that the limping of Jacob would be inexplicable if the injury was received in a vision.
However, it may of course be that the limping was also in the vision. In any case, a law was given forever to the descendants of Yakov not to eat the ‘nasheh’ sinew of an animal. If the limping was in a dream, then it is very odd that Yakov’s descendants had to follow a precept based on a dream event.
On the other hand, the reason for the precept itself is totally incomprehensible - it makes no more human-sense to keep it if the limp was real than if it was in the vision. . If the limping was not in a dream, then how did the dream of a struggle cause him to limp?
Perhaps the statement in the passage that the limp disappeared when the sun shone can be interpreted as an indication that the limp may have been caused by the mental anguish of the dream-struggle [See also Abarbanel][9].
Another example of a physical change which seemingly occurred during a dream, or due to events in a dream, relates to King Solomon’s dream wherein he requests and is granted wisdom - and awakes to find himself indeed much wiser.
Essentially however, it is clear that in both these cases the physical effect is due to something other than actual physical interaction. It would not be explicable for a touch on Jacob’s thigh to make him limp, especially considering that Jacob was fit enough to wrestle all night long. Similarly, Solomon’s new wisdom was clearly not an ordinary natural physical change.
Therefore it is no more surprising that the physical changes to Jacob and Solomon should occur as the result of a dream or vision than if they were to occur during an actual physical encounter.
“...for I have seen God face to face and my life is preserved.” Jacob’s mention that he was yet alive after his experience imply surprise or thankfulness, as though he had reason to believe that he should have died. Ramban saw this as an indication that the struggle occured in external reality, since a vision of God in any form would not carry any danger - after all his father and grandfather had had such visions and lived. This surprise would therefore seemingly be appropriate only if the event occured in external reality, where a real physical danger could have arisen. If on the other hand it were a vision, then Jacob would not have reason to believe he could have died.
However, we can answer as follows: The fact that an angel would physically harm him is in itself unusual. It is also clear that actually Jacob was the victor in the encounter - which implies that had he lost, he might have been killed. Indeed, when Jacob realizes that it was an angel he fought with rather than a human, and that this angel actually caused him physical damage, he realized that had he not succeeded, the angel might well have killed him.
Ramban also objects that if the visit of the three angels to Abraham was all a vision, then it would follow that the entire account of what occurred in Sodom concerning Lot, his family, and the inhabitants of Sodom, was all a vision - including even the destruction of the city itself. Ramban then says that Rambam himself believed that the events occurred, but that the conversations all took place in a vision.
It is not so much relevant here to discuss whether or not this latter statement is a correct interpretation of Rambam’s position on the matter. We can however state that the fact that the ‘vision’ approach implies that the entire Sodom account occurred in a vision is not in itself a disproof of the validity of the approach. Nevertheless, there is no need to go this far. We can instead say that the Lot story was indeed a vision, but that the city of Sodom was destroyed, and Lot and his daughters saved. The passages from the end of God’s dialogue with Abraham - where Abraham is pleading for the rescuing of Sodom - until the end of the story, read [in rough translation and in condensed form]:
“And Abraham said ‘Perhaps ten righteous men will be found [In Sodom]. And God said ‘[If there are ten] I will not destroy it, for their sake’. And the Lord went when He finished speaking to Abraham, and Abraham returned to his place. And the two angels came to Sodom..Lot...the people of Sodom surrounded the house....and the angels took Lot and his wife and two daughters out of the city....And God poured brimstone and fire...destroyed the cities... Lot’s wife.. a pillar of salt. And Abraham arose in the morning at the place where he stood with the face of God. And he looked out at Sodom and Gommorrah and ...the smoke was rising like from a furnace. And as the Lord destroyed [Sodom..] He remembered Abraham....and God sent Lot from out of the midst of the destruction.....and his two daughters with him..”
According to the Abarbanel, the statement “And Abraham arose in the morning at the place where he stood in the presence of God” indicates the end of the prophetic encounter begun with “And God appeared to Abraham in the plains of Mamre”. That is, that the entire Sodom account until here was a vision.
Indeed, the passages can perhaps be considered as being redundant if the events did not occur in a vision, since the destruction of the cities and the saving of Lot and his family are described twice, as can be seen from the passages quoted above. If however Abraham experienced a vision from the appearance of the three angels until the turning of Lot’s wife to salt, perhaps a vision shared by Lot and his family or others as well, then the passages are not redundant.
The vision then serves as a moral challenge, to test the individuals involved, and then based on their actions and words, their fates are decided. For example, as with Abraham, Lot proved exceptionally hospitable, even risking his life. Lot’s wife proved unable to follow the command of the angels. The daughters were seemingly willing to be sacrificed to save the angels, and the sons-in-law scoffed at the whole thing. So, Lot and his daughters proved themselves worthy of living. And then, we are indeed told at the end of this moral-test vision, after the description of these moral tests, and after the destruction of Sodom, and the escape of Lot, his wife, and his daughters, after the turning of the wife to a pillar of salt, that:
“as the Lord destroyed [Sodom..] He remembered Abraham....and God sent Lot from out of the midst of the destruction.....and his two daughters with him..”
The visions/dreams of a prophet can be interpreted as a means by which God can test the prophet’s moral strength - creating a complete mental scenario in the prophet’s mind, in order to test the response. The prophet at the time would not be in an ordinary sleep state. Instead he is as fully in control of his mental characteristics as he would be if he were wide awake. He can exert his will, and use his intelligence, exactly as he would were he awake[10]. The response may be purely mental, but it is exactly that - Man’s deepest intention - which interests God. For God to test someone, there is no need to put the person into an actual physical situation. Instead, a complete scenario is constructed and inserted into the person’s mental awareness in such a way that it seems perfectly real, yet allows his psyche, intelligence, and will to operate as though he were awake.
In an ordinary dream , it is the subconscious which constructs the dream-scenarios, and the subconscious which reacts. In the case of a prophetic dream or vision, the dream/vision scenario is directly implanted by God, and it is the entire waking faculties of the subject which controls the reaction.
……………….
FROM FIle”: “Sent to D Gilad”
According to Rambam, all the Divine communications received by the prophets of the Bible were received during a Divinely induced vision or dream[11] - except for the case of Moses. Moses is the only prophet who could actually ‘speak directly’ to God.
Physics, Visions, and Angels
When we see an entity, it is because photons (light) are emitted by that entity, or bounce off the entity - actually, are absorbed and then emitted by the entity - and then these photons enter our eye, and stimulate an electrical signal to our brain[12]. An entity which is not physical to the extent that it can bounce or emit photons cannot be physically seen.
Of course it may be possible for an image to form in our brains which appears to us as though it is in the external world. For example when we sleep, or if our brains are stimulated by electrodes. If the mind is a non-physical entity affiliated with the brain[13], images can form in it perhaps without any physical stimulus.
An angel is, according to one interpretation, a messenger of God; according to Rambam’s interpretation it is not necessarily a being, but can be e.g. a law of nature created by GOd, which is now carrying out God’s purpose; an angel can also be a non-physical being, and therefore presumably if an angel existed, it would not exist in a physical sense. According to these interpretations, it would not have physical meaning to state that the angel walked somewhere or picked up something, or said something, since all these imply a physical structure existing in spacetime. Similarly, the angel if it were not physical - could not be said to emit or bounce off photons, and therefore it could not be said with physical meaning that the angel could be ‘seen’. And, since it cannot be seen or measured or felt by any physical means, it would perhaps be meaningless to say that the angel was there - in any physical sense of ‘being’ - but simply could not be seen.
Therefore if someone were to ‘see’ an angel, it would presumably be due to an image which was formed directly in their minds by some spiritual agency, rather than by physical means. This would mean that the person would see the angel, but this vision of the angel would be an internal reality, and would not correspond to a physical entity outside the viewer - there would not be an angel ‘out there’.
Of course it would be possible for God to create a physical being and send it to someone, who would then see it. This however would be a pohysical being and not an angel, if an angel is defined to be a spiritual being. If however ‘angel ‘ is means simply ‘messenger of God’, then it would be possible to see physical angels of course.
Visions and Physical Transformations
According to Ramban, all those who are recorded in the Torah as having seen angels, actually beheld these angels in a dream or a vision, even where it is not stated that this is the case. However, he disagreed with Rambam’s more radical statements on this issue.
Rambam wrote that all those who heard God or angels speaking to them, or ‘saw’ God or angels, were actually experiencing a Divinely induced[14] vision or dream, in which they ‘heard voices’ or ‘saw angels'’, and that all the events related in that context occured in the dream or vision.
The entire episode of the speaking of Balaam’s donkey was a vision according to Rambam. Even when the Torah records long dialogues, and seemingly physical events occur, when they are within the context of a prophetic encounter they refer to mental events in the mind of the prophet.
Rambam also states that Ya’akov[Jacob]’s wrestling with the mysterious stranger - the angel - occurred in a prophetic vision or dream. This despite the fact that Ya’akov had a limp after the angel damaged his ‘nasheh’ sinew during the struggle. Thus a Biblical narrative in which an event occurs, and then seems to have an effect later, may nevertheless refer to a mental event.
Rambam also states that even angels seen by two people at the same time - as with Manoakh and his wife, parents of Samson - were seen in a dream/vision by both simultaneously.
Rambam essentially makes two crucial points. One, that regarding any Biblically recorded prophetic encounter with God or angels other than by Moses, the encounter took place during a dream or vision, regardless of whether or not it is specifically stated that it took place in a dream or vision, and regardless of what physical activity is reported as part of the encounter.
Secondly, that if in any section of the Torah there is a mention of an interaction of man - other than Moses - with God or with an angel, then the entire episode occured in a vision.
Rambam stresses that:
“In some cases the account begins by stating that the prophet saw an angel; in others the account apparently introduces a human being, who ultimately is shown to be an angel; but it makes no difference, for even if the fact that an angel has been heard is mentioned only at the end, you may rest satisfied that the whole account from the beginning describes a prophetic vision. In such visions, a prophet either sees God who speaks to him, as will be explained by us, or he sees an angel who speaks to him, or he hears someone speaking to him without seeing the speaker, or he sees a man who speaks to him, and learns afterwards that the speaker was an angel.”
Rambam then mentions the cases of Abraham’s three visitors, Jacob’s wrestling with the ‘man’, and Bilaam’s encounter, and some others. He then states:
“The instances quoted may serve as an illustration of those passages which I do not mention.”
We will indeed adapt his idea to examples which he did not mention. We cannot know whether he would have agreed with our position or not, but we feel that our examples will nevertheless be within the guidelines he set.
APPENDIX: RAMBAN’S OBJECTIONS
The Position of Ramban (Nakhmanides)
Ramban objected to the thesis of Rambam that all the events surrounding the prophecy occured in a dream or vision, and attempted to bring proofs that it was not so.
The sages in the Talmud had drawn attention to the fact that the Torah distinguishes between the level of prophecy of Moshe and that of all other prophets. They said that while all other prophets saw as ‘through a glass darkly’, Moshe Rabbenu saw clearly.
Rambam stated that the essential difference between the prophecies of Moshe and other prophets was that all of their prophecies, including all the related actions, occured in a vision rather than in actual external physical reality, whereas Ramban stated that this was not so, and that the difference was simply as stated by the Sages - a difference involving clarity. According to Ramban, the levels of prophecy are indicated by the wording relating the encounter, for example the ‘seeing of God’ being of a higher level than the ‘seeing of an angel’.
Ramban poses several questions which he hopes will convince the reader that indeed the events occured in external reality rather than in a vision. We present them below along with possible answers to Ramban’s points.
Genesis 18, where the story of Abraham’s three angelic visitors is told, begins as follows: “And God appeared to him in the plains of Mamre as he sat in the doorway of the tent. And he raised his eyes and saw, and lo three men..”. Rambam states that the words “And God appeared to him..” are a general introduction to the vision of the three “men” which followed.
Ramban asks: if it was a vision of angels rather than of God, why does the Torah say “God appeared to him”. Ramban therefore infers that there was a vision of God, about which we are told nothing other than that it occured, and that following this, three angels in the guise of men appeared to him in external reality. However, Rambam clearly states that the Torah uses the phraseology “God appeared” to describe a certain type of vision - even a vision in which God did not appear. Instead one could say that “God appeared to him” means that God caused this vision of “men” - who were angels - to arise in Abraham’s mind.
Furthermore, in the case of Jacob’s struggle with the angel Ramban would presumeably agree that it was not God who wrestled with Jacob, even though Jacob states afterwards “...for I have seen God face to face..”.
The Irrelevant Details Indicate that it was not a Vision
Ramban also objects that the events related in the story - the eating, and the baking of cakes, and so on - are superfluous if it was a vision, since the angels were there to merely give a message, and the vision could have been given simply. If on the other hand the events occured as related in external reality, then they describe the normal course of events which would occur upon the arrival of three visitors. Therefore the fact that these events not directly related to the message are included in the story indicate that it was not a vision, which would have included only the message.
We answer as follows: Indeed the message could have been given in a short vision including only the message and no three travelling men who must be offered food and so on. This in fact would seemingly have been preferable also to the complicated business of sending three angels in the guise of men, and having Abraham put in the position of having to offer them hospitality, feeding them and so on.
The issue then is why the long complicated method was preferred rather than a short giving of the messeage - why the giving of the message is long and full of seemingly irrelevant matters rather than a short and to the point vision. Clearly then these events - whether they occured in a vision or in external reality - must have had a purpose.
The passage stresses that it was during the strongest heat of the day, and it is known that Abraham was subjected to a number of tests by God, so perhaps the events were meant to test Abraham’s hospitality during his recuperation from the circumcision, and in the heat of the Middle Eastern day. Whatever the reason, the events must have had a purpose, and are not irrelevant. Rather, there was a reason that God wished Abraham to be confronted with that situation then, at the time of the giving of the message. And, the simplest manner of arranging a situation which is designed to test certain responses is to stage it as a vision, so that no extraneous matters interfere. [15]
The Actions of Sarah
Ramban also objects that if all was a vision, then the actions which the Torah ascribes to Sarah - preparing cakes and laughing at the prediction of the angels that she would bear a son - were actually not her actions, but occured instead in Abraham’s vision.
However, we can perhaps answer as follows: Some visions are joint ones - as that of Manoakh and his wife, who both saw the same angel. And in the case before us, there are various indications that this was a joint vision of Abraham and Sarah.
Sarah heard the words the angels spoke to Abraham outside even while she was in the tent; she laughed inside herself upon hearing the message of Isaac’s impending birth, and this was immediately known to Abraham, for God asks him why she laughed; and Sarah immediately responded to this message although it was from God to Abraham. These indicate that for at least some part, the vision was a joint one, and therefore Sarah did indeed commit the actions ascribed to her - to the same extent as Abraham commited the actions ascribed to him.
Physical Changes During or Following the Prophetic Encounter
Ramban also states that the limping of Jacob would be inexplicable if the injury was received in a vision.
However, it may of course be that the limping was also in the vision. In any case, a law was given forever to the descendants of Yakov not to eat the ‘nasheh’ sinew of an animal. If the limping was in a dream, then it is very odd that Yakov’s descendants had to follow a precept based on a dream event.
On the other hand, the reason for the precept itself is totally incomprehensible - it makes no more human-sense to keep it if the limp was real than if it was in the vision. . If the limping was not in a dream, then how did the dream of a struggle cause him to limp?
Perhaps the statement in the passage that the limp disappeared when the sun shone can be interpreted as an indication that the limp may have been caused by the mental anguish of the dream-struggle [See also Abarbanel][16].
Another example of a physical change which seemingly occurred during a dream, or due to events in a dream, relates to King Solomon’s dream wherein he requests and is granted wisdom - and awakes to find himself indeed much wiser.
Essentially however, it is clear that in both these cases the physical effect is due to something other than actual physical interaction. It would not be explicable for a touch on Jacob’s thigh to make him limp, especially considering that Jacob was fit enough to wrestle all night long. Similarly, Solomon’s new wisdom was clearly not an ordinary natural physical change.
Therefore it is no more surprising that the physical changes to Jacob and Solomon should occur as the result of a dream or vision than if they were to occur during an actual physical encounter.
Jacob’s Fear and Surprise Upon Awakening
“...for I have seen God face to face and my life is preserved.” Jacob’s mention that he was yet alive after his experience imply surprise or thankfulness, as though he had reason to believe that he should have died. Ramban saw this as an indication that the struggle occured in external reality, since a vision of God in any form would not carry any danger - after all his father and grandfather had had such visions and lived. This surprise would therefore seemingly be appropriate only if the event occured in external reality, where a real physical danger could have arisen. If on the other hand it were a vision, then Jacob would not have reason to believe he could have died.
However, we can answer as follows: The fact that an angel would physically harm him is in itself unusual. It is also clear that actually Jacob was the victor in the encounter - which implies that had he lost, he might have been killed. Indeed, when Jacob realizes that it was an angel he fought with rather than a human, and that this angel actually caused him physical damage, he realized that had he not succeeded, the angel might well have killed him.
The Incident in Sodom
Ramban also objects that if the visit of the three angels to Abraham was all a vision, then it would follow that the entire account of what occurred in Sodom concerning Lot, his family, and the inhabitants of Sodom, was all a vision - including even the destruction of the city itself. Ramban then says that Rambam himself believed that the events occurred, but that the conversations all took place in a vision.
It is not so much relevant here to discuss whether or not this latter statement is a correct interpretation of Rambam’s position on the matter. We can however state that the fact that the ‘vision’ approach implies that the entire Sodom account occurred in a vision is not in itself a disproof of the validity of the approach. Nevertheless, there is no need to go this far. We can instead say that the Lot story was indeed a vision, but that the city of Sodom was destroyed, and Lot and his daughters saved. The passages from the end of God’s dialogue with Abraham - where Abraham is pleading for the rescuing of Sodom - until the end of the story, read [in rough translation and in condensed form]:
“And Abraham said ‘Perhaps ten righteous men will be found [In Sodom]. And God said ‘[If there are ten] I will not destroy it, for their sake’. And the Lord went when He finished speaking to Abraham, and Abraham returned to his place. And the two angels came to Sodom..Lot...the people of Sodom surrounded the house....and the angels took Lot and his wife and two daughters out of the city....And God poured brimstone and fire...destroyed the cities... Lot’s wife.. a pillar of salt. And Abraham arose in the morning at the place where he stood with the face of God. And he looked out at Sodom and Gommorrah and ...the smoke was rising like from a furnace. And as the Lord destroyed [Sodom..] He remembered Abraham....and God sent Lot from out of the midst of the destruction.....and his two daughters with him..”
According to the Abarbanel, the statement “And Abraham arose in the morning at the place where he stood in the presence of God” indicates the end of the prophetic encounter begun with “And God appeared to Abraham in the plains of Mamre”. That is, that the entire Sodom account until here was a vision.
Indeed, the passages can perhaps be considered as being redundant if the events did not occur in a vision, since the destruction of the cities and the saving of Lot and his family are described twice, as can be seen from the passages quoted above. If however Abraham experienced a vision from the appearance of the three angels until the turning of Lot’s wife to salt, perhaps a vision shared by Lot and his family or others as well, then the passages are not redundant.
The vision then serves as a moral challenge, to test the individuals involved, and then based on their actions and words, their fates are decided. For example, as with Abraham, Lot proved exceptionally hospitable, even risking his life. Lot’s wife proved unable to follow the command of the angels. The daughters were seemingly willing to be sacrificed to save the angels, and the sons-in-law scoffed at the whole thing. So, Lot and his daughters proved themselves worthy of living. And then, we are indeed told at the end of this moral-test vision, after the description of these moral tests, and after the destruction of Sodom, and the escape of Lot, his wife, and his daughters, after the turning of the wife to a pillar of salt, that:
“as the Lord destroyed [Sodom..] He remembered Abraham....and God sent Lot from out of the midst of the destruction.....and his two daughters with him..”
Visions and Moral Tests
The Appropriateness of the Vision State
The visions/dreams of a prophet can be interpreted as a means by which God can test the prophet’s moral strength - creating a complete mental scenario in the prophet’s mind, in order to test the response. The prophet at the time would not be in an ordinary sleep state. Instead he is as fully in control of his mental characteristics as he would be if he were wide awake. He can exert his will, and use his intelligence, exactly as he would were he awake[17]. The response may be purely mental, but it is exactly that - Man’s deepest intention - which interests God. For God to test someone, there is no need to put the person into an actual physical situation. Instead, a complete scenario is constructed and inserted into the person’s mental awareness in such a way that it seems perfectly real, yet allows his psyche, intelligence, and will to operate as though he were awake.
In an ordinary dream , it is the subconscious which constructs the dream-scenarios, and the subconscious which reacts. In the case of a prophetic dream or vision, the dream/vision scenario is directly implanted by God, and it is the entire waking faculties of the subject which controls the reaction.
………………………….
According to Rambam, all the Divine communications received by the prophets of the Bible were received during a Divinely induced vision or dream[18] - except for the case of Moses. Moses is the only prophet who could actually ‘speak directly’ to Gd.
Physics, Visions, and Angels
When we see an entity, it is because photons (light) are emitted by that entity, or bounce off the entity - actually, are absorbed and then emitted by the entity - and then these photons enter our eye, and stimulate an electrical signal to our brain[19]. An entity which is not physical to the extent that it can bounce or emit photons cannot be physically seen.
Of course it may be possible for an image to form in our brains which appears to us as though it is in the external world. For example when we sleep, or if our brains are stimulated by electrodes. If the mind is a non-physical entity affiliated with the brain[20], images can form in it perhaps without any physical stimulus.
An angel is by definition a non-physical being, and therefore presumeably if an angel existed, it would not exist in a physical sense. It would not have physical meaning to state that the angel walked somewhere or picked up something, or said something, since all these imply a physical structure existing in spacetime. Similarly, the angel if it were not physical - could not be said to emit or bounce off photons, and therefore it could not be said with physical meaning that the angel could be ‘seen’. And, since it cannot be seen or measured or felt by any physical means, it would perhaps be meaningless to say that the angel was there - in any physical sense of ‘being’ - but simply could not be seen.
Therefore if someone were to ‘see’ an angel, it would presumeably be due to an image which was formed directly in their minds by some spiritual agency, rather than by physical means. This would mean that the person would see the angel, but this vision of the angel would be an internal reality, and would not correspond to a physical entity outside the viewer - there would not be an angel ‘out there’.
Of course it would be possible for God to create a physical being and send it to someone, who would then see it. This however would be a pohysical being and not an angel, if an angel is defined to be a spiritual being. If however ‘angel ‘ is means simply ‘messenger of God’, then it would be possible to see physical angels of course.
Visions and Physical Transformations
According to Ramban, all those who are recorded in the Torah as having seen angels, actually beheld these angels in a dream or a vision, even where it is not stated that this is the case. However, he disagreed with Rambam’s more radical statements on this issue.
Rambam wrote that all those who heard God or angels speaking to them, or ‘saw’ God or angels, were actually experiencing a Divinely induced[21] vision or dream, in which they ‘heard voices’ or ‘saw angels'’, and that all the events related in that context occured in the dream or vision.
The entire episode of the speaking of Balaam’s donkey was a vision according to Rambam. Even when the Torah records long dialogues, and seemingly physical events occur, when they are within the context of a prophetic encounter they refer to mental events in the mind of the prophet.
Rambam also states that Ya’akov[Jacob]’s wrestling with the mysterious stranger - the angel - occurred in a prophetic vision or dream. This despite the fact that Ya’akov had a limp after the angel damaged his ‘nasheh’ sinew during the struggle. Thus a Biblical narrative in which an event occurs, and then seems to have an effect later, may nevertheless refer to a mental event.
Rambam also states that even angels seen by two people at the same time - as with Manoakh and his wife, parents of Samson - were seen in a dream/vision by both simultaneously.
Rambam essentially makes two crucial points. One, that regarding any Biblically recorded prophetic encounter with God or angels other than by Moses, the encounter took place during a dream or vision, regardless of whether or not it is specifically stated that it took place in a dream or vision, and regardless of what physical activity is reported as part of the encounter.
Secondly, that if in any section of the Torah there is a mention of an interaction of man - other than Moses - with God or with an angel, then the entire episode occured in a vision.
Rambam stresses that:
“In some cases the account begins by stating that the prophet saw an angel; in others the account apparently introduces a human being, who ultimately is shown to be an angel; but it makes no difference, for even if the fact that an angel has been heard is mentioned only at the end, you may rest satisfied that the whole account from the beginning describes a prophetic vision. In such visions, a prophet either sees God who speaks to him, as will be explained by us, or he sees an angel who speaks to him, or he hears someone speaking to him without seeing the speaker, or he sees a man who speaks to him, and learns afterwards that the speaker was an angel.”
Rambam then mentions the cases of Abraham’s three visitors, Jacob’s wrestling with the ‘man’, and Bilaam’s encounter, and some others. He then states:
“The instances quoted may serve as an illustration of those passages which I do not mention.”
We will indeed adapt his idea to examples which he did not mention. We cannot know whether he would have agreed with our position or not, but we feel that our examples will nevertheless be within the guidelines he set.
The Position of Ramban (Nakhmanides)
Ramban objected to the thesis of Rambam that all the events surrounding the prophecy occured in a dream or vision, and attempted to bring proofs that it was not so.
The sages had drawn attention to the fact that the Torah distinguishes between the level of prophecy of Moshe and that of all other prophets. They said that while all other prophets saw as ‘through a glass darkly’, Moshe Rabbenu saw clearly.
Rambam stated that the essential difference between the prophecies of Moshe and other prophets was that they all of their prophecies, including all the related actions, occured in a vision rather than in actual external physical reality, whereas Ramban stated that this was not so, and that the difference was simply as stated by the Sages - a difference involving clarity. According to Ramban, the levels of prophecy are indicated by the wording relating the encounter, for example the ‘seeing of God’ being of a higher level than the ‘seeing of an angel’.
Ramban poses several questions which he hopes will convince the reader that indeed the events occured in external reality rather than in a vision. We present them below along with possible answers to Ramban’s points.
Genesis 18, where the story of Abraham’s three angelic visitors is told, begins as follows: “And God appeared to him in the plains of Mamre as he sat in the doorway of the tent. And he raised his eyes and saw, and lo three men..”. Rambam states that the words “And God appeared to him..” are a general introduction to the vision of the three “men” which followed.
Ramban asks: if it was a vision of angels rather than of God, why does the Torah say “God appeared to him”. Ramban therefore infers that there was a vision of God, about which we are told nothing other than that it occured, and that following this, three angels in the guise of men appeared to him in external reality. However, Rambam clearly states that the Torah uses the phraseology “God appeared” to describe a certain type of vision - even a vision in which God did not appear. Instead one could say that “God appeared to him” means that God caused this vision of “men” - who were angels - to arise in Abraham’s mind.
Furthermore, in the case of Jacob’s struggle with the angel Ramban would presumeably agree that it was not God who wrestled with Jacob, even though Jacob states afterwards “...for I have seen God face to face..”.
The Irrelevant Details Indicate that it was not a Vision
Ramban also objects that the events related in the story - the eating, and the baking of cakes, and so on - are superfluous if it was a vision, since the angels were there to merely give a message, and the vision could have been given simply. If on the other hand the events occured as related in external reality, then they describe the normal course of events which would occur upon the arrival of three visitors. Therefore the fact that these events not directly related to the message are included in the story indicate that it was not a vision, which would have included only the message.
We answer as follows: Indeed the message could have been given in a short vision including only the message and no three travelling men who must be offered food and so on. This in fact would seemingly have been preferable also to the complicated business of sending three angels in the guise of men, and having Abraham put in the position of having to offer them hospitality, feeding them and so on.
The issue then is why the long complicated method was preferred rather than a short giving of the messeage - why the giving of the message is long and full of seemingly irrelevant matters rather than a short and to the point vision. Clearly then these events - whether they occured in a vision or in external reality - must have had a purpose. The passage stresses that it was during the strongest heat of the day, and it is known that Abraham was subjected to a number of tests by God, so perhaps the events were meant to test Abraham’s hospitality during his recuperation from the circumcision, and in the heat of the Middle Eastern day. Whatever the reason, the events must have had a purpose, and are not irrelevant. Rather, there was a reason that God wished Abraham to be confronted with that situation then, at the time of the giving of the message. And, the simplest manner of arranging a situation which is designed to test certain responses is to stage it as a vision, so that no extraneous matters interfere.
The Actions of Sarah
Ramban also objects that if all was a vision, then the actions which the Torah ascribes to Sarah - preparing cakes and laughing at the prediction of the angels that she would bear a son - were actually not her actions, but occured instead in Abraham’s vision.
However, we can perhaps answer as follows: Some visions are joint ones - as that of Manoakh and his wife, who both saw the same angel. And in the case before us, there are various indications that this was a joint vision of Abraham and Sarah.
Sarah heard the words the angels spoke to Abraham outside even while she was in the tent; she laughed inside herself upon hearing the message of Isaac’s impending birth, and this was immediately known to Abraham, for God asks him why she laughed; and Sarah immediately responded to this message although it was from God to Abraham. These indicate that for at least some part, the vision was a joint one, and therefore Sarah did indeed commit the actions ascribed to her - to the same extent as Abraham commited the actions ascribed to him.
Physical Changes During or Following the Prophetic Encounter
Ramban also states that the limping of Jacob would be inexplicable if the injury was received in a vision.
However, it may of course be that the limping was also in the vision. In any case, a law was given forever to the descendants of Yakov not to eat the ‘nasheh’ sinew of an animal. If the limping was in a dream, then it is very odd that Yakov’s descendants had to follow a precept based on a dream event. On the other hand, the reason for the precept itself is totally incomprehensible - it makes no more human-sense to keep it if the limp was real than if it was in the vision. . If the limping was not in a dream, then how did the dream of a struggle cause him to limp? Perhaps the fact that the limp disappeared when the sun shone on it is an indication that the limp may have been caused by the mental anguish of the dream-struggle [See also Abarbanel][22].
Another example of a physical change which seemingly ocurred during a dream, or due to events in a dream, relates to King Solomon’s dream wherein he requests and is granted wisdom - and awakes to find himself indeed much wiser.
Essentially however, it is clear that in both these cases the physical effect is due to something other than actual physical interaction. It would not be explicable for a touch on Jacob’s thigh to make him limp, especially considering that Jacob was fit enough to wrestle all night long. Similarly, Solomon’s new wisdom was clearly not an ordinary natural physical change.
Therefore it is no more surprising that the physical changes to Jacob and Solomon should occur as the result of a dream or vision than if they were to occur during an actual physical encounter.
Jacob’s Fear and Surprise Upon Awakening
“...for I have seen God face to face and my life is preserved.” Jacob’s mention that he was yet alive after his experience imply surprise or thankfulness, as though he had reason to believe that he should have died. Ramban saw this as an indication that the struggle occured in external reality, since a vision of God in any form would not carry any danger - after all his father and grandfather had had such visions and lived. This surprise would therefore seemingly be appropriate only if the event occured in external reality, where a real physical danger could have arisen. If on the other hand it were a vision, then Jacob would not have reason to believe he could have died.
However, we can answer as follows: The fact that an angel would physically harm him is in itself unusual. It is also clear that actually Jacob was the victor in the encounter - which implies that had he lost, he might have been killed. Indeed, when Jacob realizes that it was an angel he fought with rather than a human, and that this angel actually caused him physical damage, he realized that had he not succeeded, the angel might well have killed him.
The Incident in Sodom
Ramban also objects that if the visit of the three angels to Abraham was all a vision, then it would follow that the entire account of what occured in Sodomconcerning Lot, his family, and the inhabitants of Sodom, was all a vision - including even the destruction of the city itself. Ramban then says that Rambam himself believed that the events occured, but that the converstations all took place in a vision.
It is not so much relevany here to discuss whether or not this latter statement is a correct interpretation of Rambam’s position on the matter. We can however state that the fact that the ‘vision’ approach implies that the entire Sodom account occured in a vision is not in itself a disproof of the validity of the approach. Nevertheless, there is no need to go this far. We can instead say that the Lot story was indeed a vision, but that the city of Sodom was destroyed, and Lot and his daughters saved. The passages from the end of God’s dialogue with Abraham - where Abraham is pleading for the rescuing of Sodom - until the end of the story, read [in rough translation and in condensed form]:
“And Abraham said ‘Perhaps ten righteous men will be found [In Sodom]. And God said ‘[If there are ten] I will not destroy it, for their sake’. And the Lord went when He finished speaking to Abraham, and Abraham returned to his place. And the two angels came to Sodom..Lot...the people of Sodom surrounded the house....and the angels took Lot and his wife and two daughters out of the city....And God poured brimstone and fire...destroyed the cities... Lot’s wife.. a pillar of salt. And Abraham arose in the morning at the place where he stood with the face of God. And he looked out at Sodom and Gommorrah and ...the smoke was rising like from a furnace. And as the Lord destroyed [Sodom..] He remembered Abraham....and God sent Lot from out of the midst of the destruction.....and his two daughters with him..”
According to the Abarbanel, the statement “And Abraham arose in the morning at the place where he stood with the face of God” indicates the end of the prophetic encounter begun with “And God appeared to Abraham in the plains of Mamre”. That is, that the entire Sodom account until here was a vision.
Indeed, the passages can perhaps be considered as being redundant if the events did not occur in a vision, since the destruction of the cities and the saving of Lot and his family are described twice, as can be seen from the passages quoted above. If however Abraham experienced a vision from the appearance of the three angels until the turning of Lot’s wife to salt, perhaps a vision shared by Lot and his family or others as well, then the passages are not redundant.
The vision then serves as a moral challenge, to test the individuals involved, and then based on their actions and words, their fates are decided. For example, as with Abraham, Lot proved exceptionally hospitable, even risking his life. Lot’s wife proved unable to follow the command of the angels. The daughters were seemingly willing to be sacrificed to save the angels, and the sons-in-law scoffed at the whole thing. So, Lot and his daughters preved themselves worthy of living. And then, we are indeed told at the end of this moral-test vision, after the description of these moral tests, and after the destruction of Sodom, and the escape of Lot, his wife, and his daughters, after the turning of the wife to a pillar of salt, that:
“as the Lord destroyed [Sodom..] He remembered Abraham....and God sent Lot from out of the midst of the destruction.....and his two daughters with him..”
The Appropriateness of the Vision State
The visions/dreams of a prophet can be interpreted as a means by which God can test the prophet’s moral strength - creating a complete mental scenario in the prophet’s mind, in order to test the response. The prophet at the time would not be in an ordinary sleep state. Instead he is as fully in control of his mental characteristics as he would be if he were wide awake. He can exert his will, and use his intelligence, exactly as he would were he awake[23]. The response may be purely mental, but it is exactly that - Man’s deepest intention - which interests Gd. For Gd to test someone, there is no need to put the person into an actual physical situation. Instead, a complete scenario is constructed and inserted into the person’s mental awareness in such a way that it seems perfectly real, yet allows his psyche, intelligence, and will to operate as though he were awake.
In an ordinary dream , it is the subconscious which constructs the dream-scenarios, and the subconscious which reacts. In the case of a prophetic dream or vision, the dream/vision scenario is directly implanted by Gd, and it is the entire waking faculties of the subject which controls the reaction. [24].
The only events which can be initiated by man are his free willed decisions. All else occurs in accordance with the laws of nature, including its inherent random element [due to the quantum nature of events at their fundamental level]. Man is therefore responsible only for his freely willed decisions, nothing else. That is, only the mental events connected with the making of a free willed decision is of moral relevance[25].
To make a moral evaluation of a subject what one needs to know is various information regarding the mental state of the subject. If one knows all about human psychology and the effect of the individual’s genes and environment, the particular abilities and limitations of the individual, whether the person weighed carefully all the factors known to him, whether he was sincere, whether he felt that he was acting correctly or not, what his mental state is [and so on], then a moral evaluation can be made if the criteria for such an evaluation are available. The actual physical events and their consequences are irrelevant to the question of whether or not the subject acted rightly or wrongly.
When one man judges another however, since he cannot know the other’s thoughts, he can rely only on what is apparent to him - namely, the actions of the subject, and perhaps the consequences of that action. However, one cannot always correctly judge the subject’s intentions and emotions from his actions. And certainly one’s intentions are not always directly deducible from the results of one’s actions. Furthermore, the mental struggle accompanying a decision are not visible in the action which follows the decision. And, being human, one cannot be sure that one’s moral standards or criteria for judgement are valid.
Nevertheless, it is the mental arena which is of moral relevance, not the physical. For an understanding of the moral dimension, if the exact sequence of mental events are known, no additional information is added by an analysis of the consequent physical actions and their physical ramifications. Because of the limitations of human knowledge and understanding, judging according to results of actions rather than their intent is often unavoidable, but these are then not moral judgements but rather legal judgements - albeit morally sanctioned ones. [26] [27] [28] [29]
……….
According to Rambam, all the Divine communications received by the prophets of the Bible were received during a Divinely induced vision or dream[30] - except for the case of Moses. Moses is the only prophet who could actually ‘speak directly’ to God.
Physics, Visions, and Angels
When we see an entity, it is because photons (light) are emitted by that entity, or bounce off the entity - actually, are absorbed and then emitted by the entity - and then these photons enter our eye, and stimulate an electrical signal to our brain[31]. An entity which is not physical to the extent that it can bounce or emit photons cannot be physically seen.
Of course it may be possible for an image to form in our brains which appears to us as though it is in the external world. For example when we sleep, or if our brains are stimulated by electrodes. If the mind is a non-physical entity affiliated with the brain[32], images can form in it perhaps without any physical stimulus.
An angel is, according to one interpretation, a messenger of God; according to Rambam’s interpretation it is not necessarily a being, but can be e.g. a law of nature created by GOd, which is now carrying out God’s purpose; an angel can also be a non-physical being, and therefore presumably if an angel existed, it would not exist in a physical sense. According to these interpretations, it would not have physical meaning to state that the angel walked somewhere or picked up something, or said something, since all these imply a physical structure existing in spacetime. Similarly, the angel if it were not physical - could not be said to emit or bounce off photons, and therefore it could not be said with physical meaning that the angel could be ‘seen’. And, since it cannot be seen or measured or felt by any physical means, it would perhaps be meaningless to say that the angel was there - in any physical sense of ‘being’ - but simply could not be seen.
Therefore if someone were to ‘see’ an angel, it would presumably be due to an image which was formed directly in their minds by some spiritual agency, rather than by physical means. This would mean that the person would see the angel, but this vision of the angel would be an internal reality, and would not correspond to a physical entity outside the viewer - there would not be an angel ‘out there’.
Of course it would be possible for God to create a physical being and send it to someone, who would then see it. This however would be a pohysical being and not an angel, if an angel is defined to be a spiritual being. If however ‘angel ‘ is means simply ‘messenger of God’, then it would be possible to see physical angels of course.
Visions and Physical Transformations
According to Ramban, all those who are recorded in the Torah as having seen angels, actually beheld these angels in a dream or a vision, even where it is not stated that this is the case. However, he disagreed with Rambam’s more radical statements on this issue.
Rambam wrote that all those who heard God or angels speaking to them, or ‘saw’ God or angels, were actually experiencing a Divinely induced[33] vision or dream, in which they ‘heard voices’ or ‘saw angels'’, and that all the events related in that context occured in the dream or vision.
The entire episode of the speaking of Balaam’s donkey was a vision according to Rambam. Even when the Torah records long dialogues, and seemingly physical events occur, when they are within the context of a prophetic encounter they refer to mental events in the mind of the prophet.
Rambam also states that Ya’akov[Jacob]’s wrestling with the mysterious stranger - the angel - occurred in a prophetic vision or dream. This despite the fact that Ya’akov had a limp after the angel damaged his ‘nasheh’ sinew during the struggle. Thus a Biblical narrative in which an event occurs, and then seems to have an effect later, may nevertheless refer to a mental event.
Rambam also states that even angels seen by two people at the same time - as with Manoakh and his wife, parents of Samson - were seen in a dream/vision by both simultaneously.
Rambam essentially makes two crucial points. One, that regarding any Biblically recorded prophetic encounter with God or angels other than by Moses, the encounter took place during a dream or vision, regardless of whether or not it is specifically stated that it took place in a dream or vision, and regardless of what physical activity is reported as part of the encounter.
Secondly, that if in any section of the Torah there is a mention of an interaction of man - other than Moses - with God or with an angel, then the entire episode occured in a vision.
Rambam stresses that:
“In some cases the account begins by stating that the prophet saw an angel; in others the account apparently introduces a human being, who ultimately is shown to be an angel; but it makes no difference, for even if the fact that an angel has been heard is mentioned only at the end, you may rest satisfied that the whole account from the beginning describes a prophetic vision. In such visions, a prophet either sees God who speaks to him, as will be explained by us, or he sees an angel who speaks to him, or he hears someone speaking to him without seeing the speaker, or he sees a man who speaks to him, and learns afterwards that the speaker was an angel.”
Rambam then mentions the cases of Abraham’s three visitors, Jacob’s wrestling with the ‘man’, and Bilaam’s encounter, and some others. He then states:
“The instances quoted may serve as an illustration of those passages which I do not mention.”
We will indeed adapt his idea to examples which he did not mention. We cannot know whether he would have agreed with our position or not, but we feel that our examples will nevertheless be within the guidelines he set.
APPENDIX: RAMBAN’S OBJECTIONS
The Position of Ramban (Nakhmanides)
Ramban objected to the thesis of Rambam that all the events surrounding the prophecy occured in a dream or vision, and attempted to bring proofs that it was not so.
The sages in the Talmud had drawn attention to the fact that the Torah distinguishes between the level of prophecy of Moshe and that of all other prophets. They said that while all other prophets saw as ‘through a glass darkly’, Moshe Rabbenu saw clearly.
Rambam stated that the essential difference between the prophecies of Moshe and other prophets was that all of their prophecies, including all the related actions, occured in a vision rather than in actual external physical reality, whereas Ramban stated that this was not so, and that the difference was simply as stated by the Sages - a difference involving clarity. According to Ramban, the levels of prophecy are indicated by the wording relating the encounter, for example the ‘seeing of God’ being of a higher level than the ‘seeing of an angel’.
Ramban poses several questions which he hopes will convince the reader that indeed the events occured in external reality rather than in a vision. We present them below along with possible answers to Ramban’s points.
Genesis 18, where the story of Abraham’s three angelic visitors is told, begins as follows: “And God appeared to him in the plains of Mamre as he sat in the doorway of the tent. And he raised his eyes and saw, and lo three men..”. Rambam states that the words “And God appeared to him..” are a general introduction to the vision of the three “men” which followed.
Ramban asks: if it was a vision of angels rather than of God, why does the Torah say “God appeared to him”. Ramban therefore infers that there was a vision of God, about which we are told nothing other than that it occured, and that following this, three angels in the guise of men appeared to him in external reality. However, Rambam clearly states that the Torah uses the phraseology “God appeared” to describe a certain type of vision - even a vision in which God did not appear. Instead one could say that “God appeared to him” means that God caused this vision of “men” - who were angels - to arise in Abraham’s mind.
Furthermore, in the case of Jacob’s struggle with the angel Ramban would presumeably agree that it was not God who wrestled with Jacob, even though Jacob states afterwards “...for I have seen God face to face..”.
The Irrelevant Details Indicate that it was not a Vision
Ramban also objects that the events related in the story - the eating, and the baking of cakes, and so on - are superfluous if it was a vision, since the angels were there to merely give a message, and the vision could have been given simply. If on the other hand the events occured as related in external reality, then they describe the normal course of events which would occur upon the arrival of three visitors. Therefore the fact that these events not directly related to the message are included in the story indicate that it was not a vision, which would have included only the message.
We answer as follows: Indeed the message could have been given in a short vision including only the message and no three travelling men who must be offered food and so on. This in fact would seemingly have been preferable also to the complicated business of sending three angels in the guise of men, and having Abraham put in the position of having to offer them hospitality, feeding them and so on.
The issue then is why the long complicated method was preferred rather than a short giving of the messeage - why the giving of the message is long and full of seemingly irrelevant matters rather than a short and to the point vision. Clearly then these events - whether they occured in a vision or in external reality - must have had a purpose.
The passage stresses that it was during the strongest heat of the day, and it is known that Abraham was subjected to a number of tests by God, so perhaps the events were meant to test Abraham’s hospitality during his recuperation from the circumcision, and in the heat of the Middle Eastern day. Whatever the reason, the events must have had a purpose, and are not irrelevant. Rather, there was a reason that God wished Abraham to be confronted with that situation then, at the time of the giving of the message. And, the simplest manner of arranging a situation which is designed to test certain responses is to stage it as a vision, so that no extraneous matters interfere. [34]
The Actions of Sarah
Ramban also objects that if all was a vision, then the actions which the Torah ascribes to Sarah - preparing cakes and laughing at the prediction of the angels that she would bear a son - were actually not her actions, but occured instead in Abraham’s vision.
However, we can perhaps answer as follows: Some visions are joint ones - as that of Manoakh and his wife, who both saw the same angel. And in the case before us, there are various indications that this was a joint vision of Abraham and Sarah.
Sarah heard the words the angels spoke to Abraham outside even while she was in the tent; she laughed inside herself upon hearing the message of Isaac’s impending birth, and this was immediately known to Abraham, for God asks him why she laughed; and Sarah immediately responded to this message although it was from God to Abraham. These indicate that for at least some part, the vision was a joint one, and therefore Sarah did indeed commit the actions ascribed to her - to the same extent as Abraham commited the actions ascribed to him.
Physical Changes During or Following the Prophetic Encounter
Ramban also states that the limping of Jacob would be inexplicable if the injury was received in a vision.
However, it may of course be that the limping was also in the vision. In any case, a law was given forever to the descendants of Yakov not to eat the ‘nasheh’ sinew of an animal. If the limping was in a dream, then it is very odd that Yakov’s descendants had to follow a precept based on a dream event.
On the other hand, the reason for the precept itself is totally incomprehensible - it makes no more human-sense to keep it if the limp was real than if it was in the vision. . If the limping was not in a dream, then how did the dream of a struggle cause him to limp?
Perhaps the statement in the passage that the limp disappeared when the sun shone can be interpreted as an indication that the limp may have been caused by the mental anguish of the dream-struggle [See also Abarbanel][35].
Another example of a physical change which seemingly occurred during a dream, or due to events in a dream, relates to King Solomon’s dream wherein he requests and is granted wisdom - and awakes to find himself indeed much wiser.
Essentially however, it is clear that in both these cases the physical effect is due to something other than actual physical interaction. It would not be explicable for a touch on Jacob’s thigh to make him limp, especially considering that Jacob was fit enough to wrestle all night long. Similarly, Solomon’s new wisdom was clearly not an ordinary natural physical change.
Therefore it is no more surprising that the physical changes to Jacob and Solomon should occur as the result of a dream or vision than if they were to occur during an actual physical encounter.
Jacob’s Fear and Surprise Upon Awakening
“...for I have seen God face to face and my life is preserved.” Jacob’s mention that he was yet alive after his experience imply surprise or thankfulness, as though he had reason to believe that he should have died. Ramban saw this as an indication that the struggle occured in external reality, since a vision of God in any form would not carry any danger - after all his father and grandfather had had such visions and lived. This surprise would therefore seemingly be appropriate only if the event occured in external reality, where a real physical danger could have arisen. If on the other hand it were a vision, then Jacob would not have reason to believe he could have died.
However, we can answer as follows: The fact that an angel would physically harm him is in itself unusual. It is also clear that actually Jacob was the victor in the encounter - which implies that had he lost, he might have been killed. Indeed, when Jacob realizes that it was an angel he fought with rather than a human, and that this angel actually caused him physical damage, he realized that had he not succeeded, the angel might well have killed him.
The Incident in Sodom
Ramban also objects that if the visit of the three angels to Abraham was all a vision, then it would follow that the entire account of what occurred in Sodom concerning Lot, his family, and the inhabitants of Sodom, was all a vision - including even the destruction of the city itself. Ramban then says that Rambam himself believed that the events occurred, but that the conversations all took place in a vision.
It is not so much relevant here to discuss whether or not this latter statement is a correct interpretation of Rambam’s position on the matter. We can however state that the fact that the ‘vision’ approach implies that the entire Sodom account occurred in a vision is not in itself a disproof of the validity of the approach. Nevertheless, there is no need to go this far. We can instead say that the Lot story was indeed a vision, but that the city of Sodom was destroyed, and Lot and his daughters saved. The passages from the end of God’s dialogue with Abraham - where Abraham is pleading for the rescuing of Sodom - until the end of the story, read [in rough translation and in condensed form]:
“And Abraham said ‘Perhaps ten righteous men will be found [In Sodom]. And God said ‘[If there are ten] I will not destroy it, for their sake’. And the Lord went when He finished speaking to Abraham, and Abraham returned to his place. And the two angels came to Sodom..Lot...the people of Sodom surrounded the house....and the angels took Lot and his wife and two daughters out of the city....And God poured brimstone and fire...destroyed the cities... Lot’s wife.. a pillar of salt. And Abraham arose in the morning at the place where he stood with the face of God. And he looked out at Sodom and Gommorrah and ...the smoke was rising like from a furnace. And as the Lord destroyed [Sodom..] He remembered Abraham....and God sent Lot from out of the midst of the destruction.....and his two daughters with him..”
According to the Abarbanel, the statement “And Abraham arose in the morning at the place where he stood in the presence of God” indicates the end of the prophetic encounter begun with “And God appeared to Abraham in the plains of Mamre”. That is, that the entire Sodom account until here was a vision.
Indeed, the passages can perhaps be considered as being redundant if the events did not occur in a vision, since the destruction of the cities and the saving of Lot and his family are described twice, as can be seen from the passages quoted above. If however Abraham experienced a vision from the appearance of the three angels until the turning of Lot’s wife to salt, perhaps a vision shared by Lot and his family or others as well, then the passages are not redundant.
The vision then serves as a moral challenge, to test the individuals involved, and then based on their actions and words, their fates are decided. For example, as with Abraham, Lot proved exceptionally hospitable, even risking his life. Lot’s wife proved unable to follow the command of the angels. The daughters were seemingly willing to be sacrificed to save the angels, and the sons-in-law scoffed at the whole thing. So, Lot and his daughters proved themselves worthy of living. And then, we are indeed told at the end of this moral-test vision, after the description of these moral tests, and after the destruction of Sodom, and the escape of Lot, his wife, and his daughters, after the turning of the wife to a pillar of salt, that:
“as the Lord destroyed [Sodom..] He remembered Abraham....and God sent Lot from out of the midst of the destruction.....and his two daughters with him..”
Visions and Moral Tests
The Appropriateness of the Vision State
The visions/dreams of a prophet can be interpreted as a means by which God can test the prophet’s moral strength - creating a complete mental scenario in the prophet’s mind, in order to test the response. The prophet at the time would not be in an ordinary sleep state. Instead he is as fully in control of his mental characteristics as he would be if he were wide awake. He can exert his will, and use his intelligence, exactly as he would were he awake[36]. The response may be purely mental, but it is exactly that - Man’s deepest intention - which interests God. For God to test someone, there is no need to put the person into an actual physical situation. Instead, a complete scenario is constructed and inserted into the person’s mental awareness in such a way that it seems perfectly real, yet allows his psyche, intelligence, and will to operate as though he were awake.
In an ordinary dream , it is the subconscious which constructs the dream-scenarios, and the subconscious which reacts. In the case of a prophetic dream or vision, the dream/vision scenario is directly implanted by God, and it is the entire waking faculties of the subject which controls the reaction.
.,………
According to Rambam, all the Divine communications received by the prophets of the Bible were received during a Divinely induced vision or dream[37] - except for the case of Moses. Moses is the only prophet who could actually ‘speak directly’ to God.
Physics, Visions, and Angels
When we see an entity, it is because photons (light) are emitted by that entity, or bounce off the entity - actually, are absorbed and then emitted by the entity - and then these photons enter our eye, and stimulate an electrical signal to our brain[38]. An entity which is not physical to the extent that it can bounce or emit photons cannot be physically seen.
Of course it may be possible for an image to form in our brains which appears to us as though it is in the external world. For example when we sleep, or if our brains are stimulated by electrodes. If the mind is a non-physical entity affiliated with the brain[39], images can form in it perhaps without any physical stimulus.
An angel is, according to one interpretation, a messenger of God; according to Rambam’s interpretation it is not necessarily a being, but can be e.g. a law of nature created by GOd, which is now carrying out God’s purpose; an angel can also be a non-physical being, and therefore presumably if an angel existed, it would not exist in a physical sense. According to these interpretations, it would not have physical meaning to state that the angel walked somewhere or picked up something, or said something, since all these imply a physical structure existing in spacetime. Similarly, the angel if it were not physical - could not be said to emit or bounce off photons, and therefore it could not be said with physical meaning that the angel could be ‘seen’. And, since it cannot be seen or measured or felt by any physical means, it would perhaps be meaningless to say that the angel was there - in any physical sense of ‘being’ - but simply could not be seen.
Therefore if someone were to ‘see’ an angel, it would presumably be due to an image which was formed directly in their minds by some spiritual agency, rather than by physical means. This would mean that the person would see the angel, but this vision of the angel would be an internal reality, and would not correspond to a physical entity outside the viewer - there would not be an angel ‘out there’.
Of course it would be possible for God to create a physical being and send it to someone, who would then see it. This however would be a pohysical being and not an angel, if an angel is defined to be a spiritual being. If however ‘angel ‘ is means simply ‘messenger of God’, then it would be possible to see physical angels of course.
Visions and Physical Transformations
According to Ramban, all those who are recorded in the Torah as having seen angels, actually beheld these angels in a dream or a vision, even where it is not stated that this is the case. However, he disagreed with Rambam’s more radical statements on this issue.
Rambam wrote that all those who heard God or angels speaking to them, or ‘saw’ God or angels, were actually experiencing a Divinely induced[40] vision or dream, in which they ‘heard voices’ or ‘saw angels'’, and that all the events related in that context occured in the dream or vision.
The entire episode of the speaking of Balaam’s donkey was a vision according to Rambam. Even when the Torah records long dialogues, and seemingly physical events occur, when they are within the context of a prophetic encounter they refer to mental events in the mind of the prophet.
Rambam also states that Ya’akov[Jacob]’s wrestling with the mysterious stranger - the angel - occurred in a prophetic vision or dream. This despite the fact that Ya’akov had a limp after the angel damaged his ‘nasheh’ sinew during the struggle. Thus a Biblical narrative in which an event occurs, and then seems to have an effect later, may nevertheless refer to a mental event.
Rambam also states that even angels seen by two people at the same time - as with Manoakh and his wife, parents of Samson - were seen in a dream/vision by both simultaneously.
Rambam essentially makes two crucial points. One, that regarding any Biblically recorded prophetic encounter with God or angels other than by Moses, the encounter took place during a dream or vision, regardless of whether or not it is specifically stated that it took place in a dream or vision, and regardless of what physical activity is reported as part of the encounter.
Secondly, that if in any section of the Torah there is a mention of an interaction of man - other than Moses - with God or with an angel, then the entire episode occured in a vision.
Rambam stresses that:
“In some cases the account begins by stating that the prophet saw an angel; in others the account apparently introduces a human being, who ultimately is shown to be an angel; but it makes no difference, for even if the fact that an angel has been heard is mentioned only at the end, you may rest satisfied that the whole account from the beginning describes a prophetic vision. In such visions, a prophet either sees God who speaks to him, as will be explained by us, or he sees an angel who speaks to him, or he hears someone speaking to him without seeing the speaker, or he sees a man who speaks to him, and learns afterwards that the speaker was an angel.”
Rambam then mentions the cases of Abraham’s three visitors, Jacob’s wrestling with the ‘man’, and Bilaam’s encounter, and some others. He then states:
“The instances quoted may serve as an illustration of those passages which I do not mention.”
We will indeed adapt his idea to examples which he did not mention. We cannot know whether he would have agreed with our position or not, but we feel that our examples will nevertheless be within the guidelines he set.
APPENDIX: RAMBAN’S OBJECTIONS
The Position of Ramban (Nakhmanides)
Ramban objected to the thesis of Rambam that all the events surrounding the prophecy occured in a dream or vision, and attempted to bring proofs that it was not so.
The sages in the Talmud had drawn attention to the fact that the Torah distinguishes between the level of prophecy of Moshe and that of all other prophets. They said that while all other prophets saw as ‘through a glass darkly’, Moshe Rabbenu saw clearly.
Rambam stated that the essential difference between the prophecies of Moshe and other prophets was that all of their prophecies, including all the related actions, occured in a vision rather than in actual external physical reality, whereas Ramban stated that this was not so, and that the difference was simply as stated by the Sages - a difference involving clarity. According to Ramban, the levels of prophecy are indicated by the wording relating the encounter, for example the ‘seeing of God’ being of a higher level than the ‘seeing of an angel’.
Ramban poses several questions which he hopes will convince the reader that indeed the events occured in external reality rather than in a vision. We present them below along with possible answers to Ramban’s points.
Genesis 18, where the story of Abraham’s three angelic visitors is told, begins as follows: “And God appeared to him in the plains of Mamre as he sat in the doorway of the tent. And he raised his eyes and saw, and lo three men..”. Rambam states that the words “And God appeared to him..” are a general introduction to the vision of the three “men” which followed.
Ramban asks: if it was a vision of angels rather than of God, why does the Torah say “God appeared to him”. Ramban therefore infers that there was a vision of God, about which we are told nothing other than that it occured, and that following this, three angels in the guise of men appeared to him in external reality. However, Rambam clearly states that the Torah uses the phraseology “God appeared” to describe a certain type of vision - even a vision in which God did not appear. Instead one could say that “God appeared to him” means that God caused this vision of “men” - who were angels - to arise in Abraham’s mind.
Furthermore, in the case of Jacob’s struggle with the angel Ramban would presumeably agree that it was not God who wrestled with Jacob, even though Jacob states afterwards “...for I have seen God face to face..”.
The Irrelevant Details Indicate that it was not a Vision
Ramban also objects that the events related in the story - the eating, and the baking of cakes, and so on - are superfluous if it was a vision, since the angels were there to merely give a message, and the vision could have been given simply. If on the other hand the events occured as related in external reality, then they describe the normal course of events which would occur upon the arrival of three visitors. Therefore the fact that these events not directly related to the message are included in the story indicate that it was not a vision, which would have included only the message.
We answer as follows: Indeed the message could have been given in a short vision including only the message and no three travelling men who must be offered food and so on. This in fact would seemingly have been preferable also to the complicated business of sending three angels in the guise of men, and having Abraham put in the position of having to offer them hospitality, feeding them and so on.
The issue then is why the long complicated method was preferred rather than a short giving of the messeage - why the giving of the message is long and full of seemingly irrelevant matters rather than a short and to the point vision. Clearly then these events - whether they occured in a vision or in external reality - must have had a purpose.
The passage stresses that it was during the strongest heat of the day, and it is known that Abraham was subjected to a number of tests by God, so perhaps the events were meant to test Abraham’s hospitality during his recuperation from the circumcision, and in the heat of the Middle Eastern day. Whatever the reason, the events must have had a purpose, and are not irrelevant. Rather, there was a reason that God wished Abraham to be confronted with that situation then, at the time of the giving of the message. And, the simplest manner of arranging a situation which is designed to test certain responses is to stage it as a vision, so that no extraneous matters interfere. [41]
The Actions of Sarah
Ramban also objects that if all was a vision, then the actions which the Torah ascribes to Sarah - preparing cakes and laughing at the prediction of the angels that she would bear a son - were actually not her actions, but occured instead in Abraham’s vision.
However, we can perhaps answer as follows: Some visions are joint ones - as that of Manoakh and his wife, who both saw the same angel. And in the case before us, there are various indications that this was a joint vision of Abraham and Sarah.
Sarah heard the words the angels spoke to Abraham outside even while she was in the tent; she laughed inside herself upon hearing the message of Isaac’s impending birth, and this was immediately known to Abraham, for God asks him why she laughed; and Sarah immediately responded to this message although it was from God to Abraham. These indicate that for at least some part, the vision was a joint one, and therefore Sarah did indeed commit the actions ascribed to her - to the same extent as Abraham commited the actions ascribed to him.
Physical Changes During or Following the Prophetic Encounter
Ramban also states that the limping of Jacob would be inexplicable if the injury was received in a vision.
However, it may of course be that the limping was also in the vision. In any case, a law was given forever to the descendants of Yakov not to eat the ‘nasheh’ sinew of an animal. If the limping was in a dream, then it is very odd that Yakov’s descendants had to follow a precept based on a dream event.
On the other hand, the reason for the precept itself is totally incomprehensible - it makes no more human-sense to keep it if the limp was real than if it was in the vision. . If the limping was not in a dream, then how did the dream of a struggle cause him to limp?
Perhaps the statement in the passage that the limp disappeared when the sun shone can be interpreted as an indication that the limp may have been caused by the mental anguish of the dream-struggle [See also Abarbanel][42].
Another example of a physical change which seemingly occurred during a dream, or due to events in a dream, relates to King Solomon’s dream wherein he requests and is granted wisdom - and awakes to find himself indeed much wiser.
Essentially however, it is clear that in both these cases the physical effect is due to something other than actual physical interaction. It would not be explicable for a touch on Jacob’s thigh to make him limp, especially considering that Jacob was fit enough to wrestle all night long. Similarly, Solomon’s new wisdom was clearly not an ordinary natural physical change.
Therefore it is no more surprising that the physical changes to Jacob and Solomon should occur as the result of a dream or vision than if they were to occur during an actual physical encounter.
Jacob’s Fear and Surprise Upon Awakening
“...for I have seen God face to face and my life is preserved.” Jacob’s mention that he was yet alive after his experience imply surprise or thankfulness, as though he had reason to believe that he should have died. Ramban saw this as an indication that the struggle occured in external reality, since a vision of God in any form would not carry any danger - after all his father and grandfather had had such visions and lived. This surprise would therefore seemingly be appropriate only if the event occured in external reality, where a real physical danger could have arisen. If on the other hand it were a vision, then Jacob would not have reason to believe he could have died.
However, we can answer as follows: The fact that an angel would physically harm him is in itself unusual. It is also clear that actually Jacob was the victor in the encounter - which implies that had he lost, he might have been killed. Indeed, when Jacob realizes that it was an angel he fought with rather than a human, and that this angel actually caused him physical damage, he realized that had he not succeeded, the angel might well have killed him.
The Incident in Sodom
Ramban also objects that if the visit of the three angels to Abraham was all a vision, then it would follow that the entire account of what occurred in Sodom concerning Lot, his family, and the inhabitants of Sodom, was all a vision - including even the destruction of the city itself. Ramban then says that Rambam himself believed that the events occurred, but that the conversations all took place in a vision.
It is not so much relevant here to discuss whether or not this latter statement is a correct interpretation of Rambam’s position on the matter. We can however state that the fact that the ‘vision’ approach implies that the entire Sodom account occurred in a vision is not in itself a disproof of the validity of the approach. Nevertheless, there is no need to go this far. We can instead say that the Lot story was indeed a vision, but that the city of Sodom was destroyed, and Lot and his daughters saved. The passages from the end of God’s dialogue with Abraham - where Abraham is pleading for the rescuing of Sodom - until the end of the story, read [in rough translation and in condensed form]:
“And Abraham said ‘Perhaps ten righteous men will be found [In Sodom]. And God said ‘[If there are ten] I will not destroy it, for their sake’. And the Lord went when He finished speaking to Abraham, and Abraham returned to his place. And the two angels came to Sodom..Lot...the people of Sodom surrounded the house....and the angels took Lot and his wife and two daughters out of the city....And God poured brimstone and fire...destroyed the cities... Lot’s wife.. a pillar of salt. And Abraham arose in the morning at the place where he stood with the face of God. And he looked out at Sodom and Gommorrah and ...the smoke was rising like from a furnace. And as the Lord destroyed [Sodom..] He remembered Abraham....and God sent Lot from out of the midst of the destruction.....and his two daughters with him..”
According to the Abarbanel, the statement “And Abraham arose in the morning at the place where he stood in the presence of God” indicates the end of the prophetic encounter begun with “And God appeared to Abraham in the plains of Mamre”. That is, that the entire Sodom account until here was a vision.
Indeed, the passages can perhaps be considered as being redundant if the events did not occur in a vision, since the destruction of the cities and the saving of Lot and his family are described twice, as can be seen from the passages quoted above. If however Abraham experienced a vision from the appearance of the three angels until the turning of Lot’s wife to salt, perhaps a vision shared by Lot and his family or others as well, then the passages are not redundant.
The vision then serves as a moral challenge, to test the individuals involved, and then based on their actions and words, their fates are decided. For example, as with Abraham, Lot proved exceptionally hospitable, even risking his life. Lot’s wife proved unable to follow the command of the angels. The daughters were seemingly willing to be sacrificed to save the angels, and the sons-in-law scoffed at the whole thing. So, Lot and his daughters proved themselves worthy of living. And then, we are indeed told at the end of this moral-test vision, after the description of these moral tests, and after the destruction of Sodom, and the escape of Lot, his wife, and his daughters, after the turning of the wife to a pillar of salt, that:
“as the Lord destroyed [Sodom..] He remembered Abraham....and God sent Lot from out of the midst of the destruction.....and his two daughters with him..”
Visions and Moral Tests
The Appropriateness of the Vision State
The visions/dreams of a prophet can be interpreted as a means by which God can test the prophet’s moral strength - creating a complete mental scenario in the prophet’s mind, in order to test the response. The prophet at the time would not be in an ordinary sleep state. Instead he is as fully in control of his mental characteristics as he would be if he were wide awake. He can exert his will, and use his intelligence, exactly as he would were he awake[43]. The response may be purely mental, but it is exactly that - Man’s deepest intention - which interests God. For God to test someone, there is no need to put the person into an actual physical situation. Instead, a complete scenario is constructed and inserted into the person’s mental awareness in such a way that it seems perfectly real, yet allows his psyche, intelligence, and will to operate as though he were awake.
In an ordinary dream , it is the subconscious which constructs the dream-scenarios, and the subconscious which reacts. In the case of a prophetic dream or vision, the dream/vision scenario is directly implanted by God, and it is the entire waking faculties of the subject which controls the reaction.
The Appropriateness of the Garden of Eden Account as a Vision
By adapting the foregoing approach of the Rambam regarding prophetic encounters, it may be possible to interpret the second creation account as a literal description of mental events in the mind of man. Indeed, the second account is about man’s obedience to God, man’s connection to God, man’s use of free will and so on, all of which are mental issues, and which have to be determined at the mental level[44].
..............
The only events which can be initiated by man are his free willed decisions. All else occurs in accordance with the laws of nature, including its inherent random element [due to the quantum nature of events at their fundamental level]. Man is therefore responsible only for his freely willed decisions, nothing else. That is, only the mental events connected with the making of a free willed decision is of moral relevance[45].
............
To make a moral evaluation of a subject what one needs to know is various information regarding the mental state of the subject. If one knows all about human psychology and the effect of the individual’s genes and environment, the particular abilities and limitations of the individual, whether the person weighed carefully all the factors known to him, whether he was sincere, whether he felt that he was acting correctly or not, what his mental state is [and so on], then a moral evaluation can be made if the criteria for such an evaluation are available. The actual physical events and their consequences are irrelevant to the question of whether or not the subject acted rightly or wrongly.
When one man judges another however, since he cannot know the other’s thoughts, he can rely only on what is apparent to him - namely, the actions of the subject, and perhaps the consequences of that action. However, one cannot always correctly judge the subject’s intentions and emotions from his actions. And certainly one’s intentions are not always directly deducible from the results of one’s actions. Furthermore, the mental struggle accompanying a decision are not visible in the action which follows the decision. And, being human, one cannot be sure that one’s moral standards or criteria for judgement are valid.
Nevertheless, it is the mental arena which is of moral relevance, not the physical. For an understanding of the moral dimension, if the exact sequence of mental events are known, no additional information is added by an analysis of the consequent physical actions and their physical ramifications. Because of the limitations of human knowledge and understanding, judging according to results of actions rather than their intent is often unavoidable, but these are then not moral judgements but rather legal judgements - albeit morally sanctioned ones
The Garden of Eden Account as a Moral Test
If the events in Eden were to occur in an ordinary purely physical context[46], one can speculate that the elements of interest to God would be the mental events in the minds of the protagonists.
In fact, not only is it sufficient to present the dilemma in a mental rather than physical context, it may be preferable. Physical scenarios may be limited by considerations such as conformance to the laws of nature, and they may involve unwanted interference by extraneous elements. Only a mental construct can be designed to provide the optimal scenario. Therefore, since it is within God’s power to create the situation directly in the subject’s mind, we can perhaps assume that God would do so.
Indeed, in the case of a seminal conflict such as that presented to Man in Eden, it is eminently desirable to ensure that no extraneous events interfere with the situation. The best way to ensure this is to present the conflict within the context of a directly implanted mental vision[47].
As stated above, Rambam states that even angels seen by two people at the same time [as with Manoakh and his wife, parents of Samson], were seen in a dream/vision by both simultaneously. Thus it is possible for both Adam and Eve to have shared the same vision, with the events in the vision interacting in the same way that events would interact in an actual physical context[48]. [49] [50]
The Garden of Eden and Science
As we have seen, Rambam states that all prophetic encounters other than those of Moshe are to be interpreted as having occurred in dreams or visions. The question is whether or not Adam is considered as a prophet. And if so, was he perhaps on a different level, perhaps similar to that of Moshe, or even higher, so that his prophetic experiences were not restricted to dreams and visions.
Scientific evidence does not seem to support the historicity or physical possibility of the events related in the second creation account if these were physical events in the external world as opposed to mental events. Therefore, if Adam was a prophet like all others - except Moshe - and his experiences occurred in a vision, they present no difficulty in themselves to scientific theory. However if Adam was in a category other than the other prophets, so that the events related occurred in the physical external world rather than in a vision, then there would seem to be an apparent conflict with scientific theory.
However, even in such a case, since the events in the Garden of Eden occurred prior to the establishment of the laws of nature[51], the events did not occur in the physical universe as we know of it, and would not have effects in the physical universe, and would therefore not leave traces detectable via modern scientific investigation.
Either way then, the Garden of Eden account cannot present a contradiction to any physical laws, or to any theories based on these laws - either way they occurred in a non-physical context, as part of a vision which Adam was granted, or in some other manner.
Adam As Prophet
According to many Traditional sources, until his rebellion Adam existed on a higher spiritual level than Man today, and his body was not a purely physical one. Therefore one might conclude that, like with Moshe, Adam was an exception to the rule, and the events referring to him related in the Bible were not part of a vision. That is, that the narrative in the Bible regarding Adam is refers to events in the outside physical universe rather than to mental events in the mind of a prophet - that is, a vision.
On the other hand, if the events are such as would be impossible except with a being on the spiritual level of Adam, possessing a spiritualized body, then perhaps it is incorrect to say that they were actual physical events. We would then not interpret the accounts referring to Adam as being descriptions of events in the outside universe.
Alternatively, the dialogue between God and Adam continued after the eating of the Tree of Knowledge, without any apparent change in the level or type of communication. Therefore if Adam’s level after eating was that of ordinary man, perhaps this means that his dialogues previously were also of the ordinary prophetic type.
It may be however that Adam’s level changed only after the expulsion from Eden, so that one cannot say as above that the earlier interchanges were at the ordinary prophetic level. In fact, in the same way that his placement in Eden meant an increase in his status rather than a change in his physical location [See Gen. R. 15:5 and 16:8], the expulsion of Adam from Eden might mean precisely this downward change in his status . Indeed after the expulsion there is no recorded dialogue between God and Adam , and no record of any non-natural event occurring to Adam. Thus perhaps all the events recounted occurred only while Adam was on a higher level, in a spiritualized body - that is, while he was ‘in the Garden of Eden’.
Nevertheless as we stated above, if the events are such as would be impossible except to a being such as Adam with a spiritualized body, then perhaps it is incorrect to say that they were actual physical events.
Prophetic Encounters and their Concomitant Events
To say that Moshe saw events not in a vision does not necessarily mean that he perceived events which were occurring in the outside universe - it may be that his special higher level of prophecy was that he perceived events while awake rather than while in a vision trance, but that the events which he perceived were not themselves actual physical events in the outside world.
For example, since God is not physical , God has no ‘voice’. Since God is not physical, God is not located anywhere, and therefore, a ‘voice from God’ cannot be said to necessarily originate from a unique location. Therefore we imagine that ‘and God spoke to Moshe’ may mean something like “and God caused Moshe’s mind to sense the following words”, rather than necessarily meaning “a sound wave of vibrating air molecules proceeded from God’s mouth to Moshe’s ear”.
In addition, using the ordinary definitions of the word, a bush cannot be on fire and yet not be consumed, since the fire is is itself energy released via the consumption of the material of the bush. One would instead probably interpret Moshe’s seeing a burning bush as meaning “God caused Moshe to perceive a burning bush which was not consumed”, or “God caused Moshe to see a real bush, and to perceive it as though it were burning yet not consumed”....or etc.
It is possible to conclude that even within the Rambam’s approach, even with Moshe events such as the burning bush occurred in a vision, whereas the dialogue with God occurred while he was fully awake. Furthermore, even if prophetic events such as the burning bush were perceived by Moshe when fully awake, this does not mean that they occurred in the physical universe. Rather, they could just as well have been mental events experienced by Moshe while in a fully awakened state. That is, Moshe perceived the bush to be on fire, and actually physically walked over to it, and actually physically removed his shoes, and actually physically spoke the words recorded in the Torah. However, perhaps the sight of the burning bush was present in his mind only - another person in the vicinity would not have noticed it [unless God specifically placed that ‘view’ into their mind]. Similarly, God’s voice sounded in Moshe’s mind, but would not have been heard by anyone else.
Thus a person observing the entire event would not see any non-natural event. They would see only Moshe’s responses to the Divine, not the Divine itself. [Just as Bil’am did not see the angel which his donkey saw and perhaps thought his donkey had gone mad, those watching Moshe would probably consider his actions to be an indication of insanity.][Bil’am’s seeing the donkey swerve for no reason, and hitting and cursing it, may also have been part of his vision. Or, the hitting and cursing could have been real......etc.] Indeed, the Torah tells us “And God saw that he [Moshe] had turned to see [the burning bush]” as though this in itself were a test, implying that ordinary people would not have noticed anything unusual.
Rambam: Adam as Prophet, and the Laws of Nature
Rambam states clearly that only Moshe was on a level sufficiently high for him to be able to experience dialogue with God in a full waking state, implying that Adam was not on this level, and therefore that God’s command to Adam, and Adam’s dialogues with God, all occurred in a vision, as with all prophets other than Moshe. However, if according to Rambam Adam was like other prophets, so that his dialogues with God and his non-natural experiences occurred in a vision rather than physically, it would seem that this conclusion would have been significant enough to warrant that Rambam would have mentioned it explicitly.
Perhaps the reason Rambam does not mention Adam in this connection is that there was no need to. According to Rambam, based on ‘all the Rabbis’, the entire Garden of Eden story occurred prior to the institution by God of the laws of nature. Thus, since these events were not in conflict with the laws of nature, Rambam felt no need to consider these events as occurring in a vision.
If one interprets these events as occurring in the when the laws of nature were in effect, then perhaps one can categorize Adam’s experience with all other prophetic experiences, so that they occurred in a vision, or in the partly spiritual plane of Adam’s spiritualized body. If they occurred prior to the institution of physical law, then they necessarily occurred in a non-ordinarily-physical plane. Either way, they were not ordinarily-physical events.
From Rambam’s words it is not clear whether or not he considers Adam to have been a prophet at all, and if so whether he was a prophet on the same level as all the other prophets other than Moshe. On the one hand Rambam seems to imply that Adam was indeed a prophet. In his words [”Guide” II:39]:
“..the prophecy of Moses was different from that of other prophets; we will now explain that this distinction alone qualified him for proclaiming the Torah, a mission without parallel in the history from Adam to Moses, or among the prophets who came after him.”
However, the next quote:
“There were prophets before Moses, as the patriarchs Shem, Eber, Noakh, Meshuselakh, and Khanokh....”
seems to imply that Adam was not a prophet. However, perhaps Rambam does not mention Adam since it is obvious that he was a prophet since not only did God speak to him, but God actually conversed with him.
[1] "Guide" II:29.
[2] Rav Khisdai Crescas (1340-1415). See "Challenge" p127.
[3] From Rabinovitch, p.129 "Source Material".
[4] "Guide" II:41,42. Ramban objected vigorously to his approach. See Appendix Ramban.
[5] Contrary to some popularly-held opinions that the eye emits light which allows it to see, or that seeing an entity does not involve an interaction with it..
[6] We will not deal here with the mind-body problem explicitly, although this entire section is actually based on it in some sense.
[7] According to Rambam prophecy is a natural occurrence to a properly developed intellect, but can occur to a particular person only if God wills that that person receive prophecy. He wrote that all those who heard God or angels speaking to them, or ‘saw’ God or angels, were not seeing angels, nor were they seeing actual ‘angels’ just that they were seen in a dream, but rather were experiencing a (divinely induced) dream or vision, in which they ‘heard voices’ or ‘saw angels’.
[8] The prophet at the time would not be in an ordinary sleep state. Instead he is as fully in control of his mental characteristics as he would be if he were wide awake. He can exert his will, and use his intelligence, exactly as he would were he awake. The response may be purely mental, but it is exactly that - Man's deepest intention - which interests God. For God to test someone, there is no need to put the person into an actual physical situation. Instead, a complete scenario is constructed and inserted into the person's mental awareness in such a way that it seems perfectly real, yet allows his psyche, intelligence, and will to operate as though he were awake.
In an ordinary dream , it is the subconscious which constructs the dream-scenarios, and the subconscious which reacts. In the case of a prophetic dream or vision, the dream/vision scenario is directly implanted by God, and it is the entire waking faculties of the subject which controls the reaction.
[9] We wish to make a point here regarding the reliability of commandments received during the visions perceived by the major prophets.
Although the events may have been mental, they were bestowed (implanted) by God, and were in that sense objective. Thus, when Abraham received a command to "Leave your homeland...and go to the Land that I will show you", to circumcise himself and his sons etc., this was the exact intent of the vision, not merely his subjective impression.
Furthermore, all commandments binding for future generations (e.g. circumcision) are binding because were repeated to the Jewish people as a whole (at Sinai, or etc.) (The precept regarding the sinew is stated by God in the Torah, not by Jacob as part of the story recorded there.)According to Rambam (III:24):
"The account of the binding (for sacrifice) by Abraham of his son Isaac shows...how (strongly) the prophets believed in the truth of that which came to God by way of inspiration. We shall not think that what the prophets heard or saw in the allegorical figures may at times have included incorrect or doubtful elements.....whatever the prophet perceives in a prophetic vision he considers as correct and not open to doubt...".
[10] Malbim, commenting on the dream of King Solomon in which he requests wisdom, states that in one's dreams one's true desires are more apparent than when awake. If this is the case even in ordinary dreams, certainly in the case of a specially divinely instituted vision state it would be the case.
[11] "Guide" II:41,42. Ramban objected vigorously to his approach. See Appendix Ramban.
[12] Contrary to some popularly-held opinions that the eye emits light which allows it to see, or that seeing an entity does not involve an interaction with it..
[13] We will not deal here with the mind-body problem explicitly, although this entire section is actually based on it in some sense.
[14] According to Rambam prophecy is a natural occurrence to a properly developed intellect, but can occur to a particular person only if God wills that that person receive prophecy.
[15] The prophet at the time would not be in an ordinary sleep state. Instead he is as fully in control of his mental characteristics as he would be if he were wide awake. He can exert his will, and use his intelligence, exactly as he would were he awake. The response may be purely mental, but it is exactly that - Man's deepest intention - which interests God. For God to test someone, there is no need to put the person into an actual physical situation. Instead, a complete scenario is constructed and inserted into the person's mental awareness in such a way that it seems perfectly real, yet allows his psyche, intelligence, and will to operate as though he were awake.
In an ordinary dream , it is the subconscious which constructs the dream-scenarios, and the subconscious which reacts. In the case of a prophetic dream or vision, the dream/vision scenario is directly implanted by God, and it is the entire waking faculties of the subject which controls the reaction.
[16] We wish to make a point here regarding the reliability of commandments received during the visions perceived by the major prophets.
Although the events may have been mental, they were bestowed (implanted) by God, and were in that sense objective. Thus, when Abraham received a command to "Leave your homeland...and go to the Land that I will show you", to circumcise himself and his sons etc., this was the exact intent of the vision, not merely his subjective impression.
Furthermore, all commandments binding for future generations (e.g. circumcision) are binding because were repeated to the Jewish people as a whole (at Sinai, or etc.) (The precept regarding the sinew is stated by God in the Torah, not by Jacob as part of the story recorded there.)According to Rambam (III:24):
"The account of the binding (for sacrifice) by Abraham of his son Isaac shows...how (strongly) the prophets believed in the truth of that which came to God by way of inspiration. We shall not think that what the prophets heard or saw in the allegorical figures may at times have included incorrect or doubtful elements.....whatever the prophet perceives in a prophetic vision he considers as correct and not open to doubt...".
[17] Malbim, commenting on the dream of King Solomon in which he requests wisdom, states that in one's dreams one's true desires are more apparent than when awake. If this is the case even in ordinary dreams, certainly in the case of a specially divinely instituted vision state it would be the case.
[18] "Guide" II:41,42. Ramban objected vigorously to his approach. See Appendix Ramban.
[19] Contrary to some popularly-held opinions that the eye emits light which allows it to see, or that seeing an entity does not involve an interaction with it..
[20] We will not deal here with the mind-body problem explicitly, although this entire section is actually based on it in some sense.
[21] According to Rambam prophecy is a natural occurence to a properly developed intellect, but can occur to a particular person only if God wills that that person receive prophecy.
[22] We wish to make a point here regarding the reliability of commandments received during the visions perceived by the major prophets.
Although the events may have been mental, they were bestowed by God, and were in that sense objective. Thus, when Abraham received a command to "Leave your homeland...and go to the Land that I will show you", to circumcize himself and his sons etc., this was the exact intent of the vision, not merely his subjective impression.
Furthermore, all commandments binding for future generations (e.g. circumcision) are binding because were repeated to the Jewish people as a whole (at Sinai, or etc.) (The precept regarding the sinew is stated by God in the Torah, not by Jacob as part of the story recorded there.)According to Rambam (III:24):
"The account of the binding (for sacrifice) by Abraham of his son Isaac shows...how (strongly) the prophets believed in the truth of that which came to God by way of inspiration. We shall not think that what the prophets heard or saw in the allegorical figures may at times have included incorrect or doubtful elements.....whatever the prophet perceives in a prophetic vision he considers as correct and not open to doubt...".
[23] Malbim, commenting on the dream of King Solomon in which he requests wisdom, states that in one's dreams one's true desires are more apparent than when awake. If this is the case even in ordinary dreams, certainly in the case of a specially divinely instituted vision state it would be the case.
[24] There is an interesting parallel between the talking donkey of Bilam and the talking snake in Eden. They are the only cases in the Torah in which an animal speaks, and in both cases man was embarking on a venture which he knew via special Divine communication was displeasing to Gd. A further connection between the two cases is the theme of the snake - we are told (see Numbers 24:1)that Bil'am used 'nekhashim' to carry out his defiant actions, translated traditionally as 'nikhushim' = 'guesses', or 'magic', but literally meaning 'snakes'.
[25] See discussions by the present author in "The Retroactive Universe", "Free Will": B'ohr Hatorah #6, and in "Free Will, Meaning and Purpose" [in preparation].
[26] Granting the existence of a physical Tree of Knowledge and so on.
[27] See for example the case of Gd's visit to Abraham and the mental linking of the message of the angels to Abraham with the response of Sarah in the author's "Commentary on the Torah" [Hebrew].
For a treatment of the story of Noakh and the flood as a vision, see the author's "Religion and Science".
[28] Free will of the meaningful type specified previously is not comprehensible within the bounds of physics and logic. It is truly a quality which seems to be purely mental, and which can perhaps be acquired only via a special divine act.
[29] The Garden of Eden Account as a Moral Test If the events in Eden were to occur in an ordinary purely physical context, one can speculate that the elements of interest to Gd would be the mental events in the minds of the protagonists.
In fact, not only is it sufficient to present the dilemma in a mental rather than physical context, it may be preferrable. Physical scenarios may be limited by considerations such as conformance to the laws of nature, and they may involve unwanted interference by extraneous elements. Only a mental construct can be designed to provide the optimal scenario. Therefore, since it is within Gd's power to create the situation directly in the subject's mind, we can perhaps assume that Gd would do so.
Indeed, in the case of a seminal conflict such as that presented to Man in Eden, it is emminently desireable to ensure that no extraneous events interfere with the situation. The best way to ensure this is to present the conflict within the context of a directly implanted mental vision[29].
As stated above, Rambam states that even angels seen by two people at the same time [as with Manoakh and his wife, parents of Samson], were seen in a dream/vision by both simultaneously. Thus it is possible for both Adam and Eve to have shared the same vision, with the events in the vision interacting in the same way that events would interact in an actual physical context
[30] "Guide" II:41,42. Ramban objected vigorously to his approach. See Appendix Ramban.
[31] Contrary to some popularly-held opinions that the eye emits light which allows it to see, or that seeing an entity does not involve an interaction with it..
[32] We will not deal here with the mind-body problem explicitly, although this entire section is actually based on it in some sense.
[33] According to Rambam prophecy is a natural occurrence to a properly developed intellect, but can occur to a particular person only if God wills that that person receive prophecy.
[34] The prophet at the time would not be in an ordinary sleep state. Instead he is as fully in control of his mental characteristics as he would be if he were wide awake. He can exert his will, and use his intelligence, exactly as he would were he awake. The response may be purely mental, but it is exactly that - Man's deepest intention - which interests God. For God to test someone, there is no need to put the person into an actual physical situation. Instead, a complete scenario is constructed and inserted into the person's mental awareness in such a way that it seems perfectly real, yet allows his psyche, intelligence, and will to operate as though he were awake.
In an ordinary dream , it is the subconscious which constructs the dream-scenarios, and the subconscious which reacts. In the case of a prophetic dream or vision, the dream/vision scenario is directly implanted by God, and it is the entire waking faculties of the subject which controls the reaction.
[35] We wish to make a point here regarding the reliability of commandments received during the visions perceived by the major prophets.
Although the events may have been mental, they were bestowed (implanted) by God, and were in that sense objective. Thus, when Abraham received a command to "Leave your homeland...and go to the Land that I will show you", to circumcise himself and his sons etc., this was the exact intent of the vision, not merely his subjective impression.
Furthermore, all commandments binding for future generations (e.g. circumcision) are binding because were repeated to the Jewish people as a whole (at Sinai, or etc.) (The precept regarding the sinew is stated by God in the Torah, not by Jacob as part of the story recorded there.)According to Rambam (III:24):
"The account of the binding (for sacrifice) by Abraham of his son Isaac shows...how (strongly) the prophets believed in the truth of that which came to God by way of inspiration. We shall not think that what the prophets heard or saw in the allegorical figures may at times have included incorrect or doubtful elements.....whatever the prophet perceives in a prophetic vision he considers as correct and not open to doubt...".
[36] Malbim, commenting on the dream of King Solomon in which he requests wisdom, states that in one's dreams one's true desires are more apparent than when awake. If this is the case even in ordinary dreams, certainly in the case of a specially divinely instituted vision state it would be the case.
[37] "Guide" II:41,42. Ramban objected vigorously to his approach. See Appendix Ramban.
[38] Contrary to some popularly-held opinions that the eye emits light which allows it to see, or that seeing an entity does not involve an interaction with it..
[39] We will not deal here with the mind-body problem explicitly, although this entire section is actually based on it in some sense.
[40] According to Rambam prophecy is a natural occurrence to a properly developed intellect, but can occur to a particular person only if God wills that that person receive prophecy.
[41] The prophet at the time would not be in an ordinary sleep state. Instead he is as fully in control of his mental characteristics as he would be if he were wide awake. He can exert his will, and use his intelligence, exactly as he would were he awake. The response may be purely mental, but it is exactly that - Man's deepest intention - which interests God. For God to test someone, there is no need to put the person into an actual physical situation. Instead, a complete scenario is constructed and inserted into the person's mental awareness in such a way that it seems perfectly real, yet allows his psyche, intelligence, and will to operate as though he were awake.
In an ordinary dream , it is the subconscious which constructs the dream-scenarios, and the subconscious which reacts. In the case of a prophetic dream or vision, the dream/vision scenario is directly implanted by God, and it is the entire waking faculties of the subject which controls the reaction.
[42] We wish to make a point here regarding the reliability of commandments received during the visions perceived by the major prophets.
Although the events may have been mental, they were bestowed (implanted) by God, and were in that sense objective. Thus, when Abraham received a command to "Leave your homeland...and go to the Land that I will show you", to circumcise himself and his sons etc., this was the exact intent of the vision, not merely his subjective impression.
Furthermore, all commandments binding for future generations (e.g. circumcision) are binding because were repeated to the Jewish people as a whole (at Sinai, or etc.) (The precept regarding the sinew is stated by God in the Torah, not by Jacob as part of the story recorded there.)According to Rambam (III:24):
"The account of the binding (for sacrifice) by Abraham of his son Isaac shows...how (strongly) the prophets believed in the truth of that which came to God by way of inspiration. We shall not think that what the prophets heard or saw in the allegorical figures may at times have included incorrect or doubtful elements.....whatever the prophet perceives in a prophetic vision he considers as correct and not open to doubt...".
[43] Malbim, commenting on the dream of King Solomon in which he requests wisdom, states that in one's dreams one's true desires are more apparent than when awake. If this is the case even in ordinary dreams, certainly in the case of a specially divinely instituted vision state it would be the case.
[44] There is an interesting parallel between the talking donkey of Bilam and the talking snake in Eden. They are the only cases in the Torah in which an animal speaks, and in both cases man was embarking on a venture which he knew via special Divine communication was displeasing to God. A further connection between the two cases is the theme of the snake - we are told (see Numbers 24:1)that Bil'am used 'nekhashim' to carry out his defiant actions, translated traditionally as 'nikhushim' = 'guesses', or 'magic', but literally meaning 'snakes'.
[45] See discussions by the present author in his book "The Retroactive Universe", or his article "Free Will" in B'ohr Hatorah #6.
[46] Granting the existence of a physical Tree of Knowledge and so on.
[47] In the instant universe scenario (see chapter X) there is then a thematic connection between the method used by God in the design of the universe [mental design], the creation of the universe [mental extrapolation up to the moral stage], and the events which allowed the emergence of the universe into actual existence [aquisition of the mental quality of free will, and a mental struggle over a moral issue].
[48] See for example the case of God's visit to Abraham and the mental linking of the message of the angels to Abraham with the response of Sarah in the author's "XXX" [Hebrew].
For a treatment of the story of Noakh and the flood as a vision, see the author's "Religion and Science".
[49] In the instant universe scenario [see chapter "The Instant Universe"] it is assumed that at some point the universe was put into a big-bang-emergent state corresponding to the date of 6,000 years ago. It would seem therefore that at that time there existed a race of moral beings. We explore there the possibility that an entire race of moral beings were created - a race called 'Adam', that is, 'Man'. If this is so, then it may be that all Mankind experienced some mental 'rite of passage' simultaneously, corresponding to the events depicted in the Garden of Eden account. That is, the universe emerged as a big-bang-emergent pre-moral stage universe, and the moral stage was initiated by some Divinely-implanted race-wide mental activity which endowed Man's mind with a free will, or equivalently there was created an entire race of beings who experienced this shared vision.
[50] Free will of the meaningful type specified previously is not comprehensible within the bounds of physics and logic. It is truly a quality which seems to be purely mental, and which can perhaps be acquired only via a special divine act.
[51] See Rambam "Guide", quoted earlier.
\03
The Biblical Creation and Flood Accounts:
Interpretations and Methods
Part I: Miracles and evidence of their occurrence
Miraculous events are by definition beyond the realm of nature, and as a result they cannot be detected after the event. For example, the case of Bil'am's donkey.
Donkeys do not possess well developed brains, nor do they have sophisticated vocal chords. Therefore one certainly does not expect a donkey to talk. Nevertheless, it is of course possible for the creator of all to "open the mouth of the donkey" [Numbers XX]. However, this speaking of the donkey would be a supernatural event, and therefore it is not to be expected that the donkey would necessarily have acquired a sophisticated brain and vocal apparatus. Similarly, it would not be expected that the donkey continue to have the ability to speak - the speaking was a unique event, a miracle.
As a supernatural event, the speaking of the donkey would leave no humanly-detectable trace in the form of changed brain and vocal apparatus, nor in the form of a continued ability to speak. As stated previously, miraculous events are by definition beyond the realm of nature, and as a result they cannot be detected after the event.
Even miracles which were performed in the view of multitudes were always done in such a way that the skeptic viewer could contrive a 'natural' explanation for the event[1]. And then, after the event occurred, there would be no way to prove that it had indeed been a miracle.
Creation
Modern speculations have proposed that the universe can arise by itself via a quantum fluctuation of the vacuum. However there would seemingly have to first exist a vacuum, the laws of quantum physics and the potential for the quantum universe. Once these exist, the universe can possibly indeed arise by itself. However, this vacuum, laws, and potential for the existence of the universe, is not 'nothing'. Thus, in the quantum fluctuation model the universe can arise on its own from the combination of laws, vacuum and potential quantum universe, but even in the quantum fluctuation model, the universe cannot arise from nothing.
What then is the origin of the initial ingredients necessary for the emergence of the universe? One can claim that since time began at the singularity, there is no meaning to such questions as 'what happened prior to the singularity' or 'what caused the singularity'. Alternatively, one can claim that there always existed these ingredients, and thus that the question of where they originated from is not a meaningful question[2].
However, according to the Torah, there was a creation ex-nihilo. This creation of the universe from absolute nothingness is a miraculous event. As a miraculous event, then, creation ex-nihilo is not detectable in the physical universe. One cannot expect the miraculous event of creation ex-nihilo to leave traces in the physical universe - indeed it is the existence of the physical universe which is the miracle itself.
Thus, looking at the physical universe, studying its origins according to the laws of nature, does not reveal traces of the miraculous event of creation ex-nihilo[3]. Instead, what we find is only that which we have put there to find. That is, when we use the laws of nature to study the origins of the physical universe, we find the origin as it would be had there been nothing beyond the physical universe, and had this physical universe arisen according to natural law. That is, we trace the universe back to some beginning or to no beginning - to a big bang or to an eternal matter.
The Noachide Flood
What was said above regarding the creation, applies similarly to the case of the Noahide flood.
It is clear that no natural flood could be of the proportions described in Genesis. There is not enough water in the atmosphere to flood the world to a height above the highest mountains. Certainly it is impossible for one man, or one family, or even a large group of men with the primitive technology of Noah's time, to gather representatives of all the world's animals, to load them onto a boat, and to fit them all in, with a sufficient supply of food for a year.
It would be impossible for all the animals which survived the flood to populate the widely scattered islands and continents they now inhabit. And if they inhabited these places prior to the flood, the intervening water, mountains, and so on, would have made their trip to Noah's ark quite impossible[4].
It is therefore clear that the Noahide flood could not have been a natural occurrence. Indeed, the Bible, which is the only existing source about the flood, states quite clearly that it was a direct Act of God - not a natural occurrence. As a supernatural occurrence therefore, the flood is not detectable after the fact by 'natural' means.
The Bible, which tells of the flood, claims that this world-wide flood was made by the Being Who created the entire universe. One may or may not believe that such a being exists. However, if God the creator does exist, then it is not difficult to believe that this creator has sufficient power to do all that is related in the flood account. Surely the creator of the universe - and therefore the creator of the planet Earth, and of the compound we call water - could flood the world with water; the creator of all life, of all the animals, could certainly gather representatives of all the animals[5], feed them, and rescatter them across the face of the earth after the flood.
And, since all this is supernatural, it would leave no trace in the physical universe.
Joshua and the Sun: A Supernatural Event
When Joshua arranged for "the sun to stand still" instead of setting, this was obviously a great miracle, a supernatural event. Indeed, since the earth's rotation is what causes the 'rising and setting' of the sun, halting the motion of the sun's setting probably involved halting the rotation of the Earth, rather than a change in the motion of the sun[6]. However, halting the rotation of the earth would cause all the earth's inhabitants to fly off into space, in the way that a person can be flung from a suddenly stopped car or merry-go-round ['round-about']. Indeed, the entire earth would probably crack up into pieces from the stresses that wouold be created. This of course did not happen.
Further, if the sun shone for a longer period at on point of the earth, it follows that it arrived later everywhere else. This would surely have been noticed and remarked upon a s a great wonder by people everywhere. This did not happen.
In fact, according to Rambam [Maimonides] [Guide II:35], this miracle was witnessed only by a few people, not even by all the Jewish people - and therefore certainly not by the rest of the world. Thus the 'stopping of the sun' was more likely a perceived lengthening of the day which affected the perception of some people only - for example, those of the Jewish people doing the actual fighting.
It could have been that the time sense of these people was changed, so that they could think and act more quickly than normally. To them, the day would have seemed longer than normal. Alternatively, their eyes could have been made more sensitive to light, so as to be able to see perfectly well in weak twilight, or in the dark starlit night. Or the images in their brains were enhanced to accomplish the same effect. To them, it would seem as though the sun had been shining the entire time[7].
However it might have occured though, it was a supernatural event, and it would therefore not leave any traces in the physical universe. The objects in the physical universe which were involved in the miracle can show no trace of the occurence of supernatural events, and thus the present day position of the earth and of the sun is the same as it would be had this miracle not occured.
Part II
We now present a different type of approach to resolving the conflict between science and the Biblical accounts of creation and the flood.
The Date of the Flood: One approach is to push back the date of the flood to an earlier period in human history. According to evolutionary genetics, all of Mankind is descended from one line of primitive Man. That is, there was a first man and a first woman - though they were not necessarily in the same generation. From these first beings and from their contemporaries, there developed the human race. The first few such beings probably lived in the same general area, and may well have sought each other out to form a mutually beneficial society. After a few hundred years, there may have been only one general area on the Earth populated by humans, with their evolutionary predecessors all about them.
There are many traditions across the world of a catastrophic flood which devastated the world, leaving only the inhabitants of that area alive. If there had been a flood at a time close to the emergence of the first humans, then a large flood might well have wiped out the entire human race except for one family. Indeed, according to the Bible, the flood occured only nine generations after the generation of Adam.
Thus, if the flood account refers to a time only a few generations after the emergence of the first humans, then it is understandable that all Mankind inhabited a relatively small area. As a result, a catastrophic flood could have wiped out the entire human race - save for one family[8].
It would then be reasonable that a fear of flooding would develop, leading to a transmission - even in the most primitive of societies - of a warning regarding floods, and a description of their catastrophic effect. Eventually this would be redeveloped into the story of a universal flood , and would be recorded in writing when that developed.
These accounts can be found in many societies. The true version, uncorrupted by transmission errors, is found in the Bible.
Part III: The Creation Account
The creation account in Genesis may in fact not be the description of the creation of the universe as a whole. Instead it may be the description of a limited act of creation on the planet earth at some stage in its development. Or, alternately,....
Many may have Survived the Flood
Another method of reconciling the account of the flood with the results of modern archaeology and geology can be based on the following:
The Bible makes the point very clearly, and repeatedly, that God destroyed all man and beast in the whole world expect for Noah and those in the ark. Nevertheless, one of the Rabbis of the Talmud tells us that Og, King of Bashan, survived the flood! [9] Tosphot then states [deduces] that his brother Sikhon must also have survived the flood[10]. Also, that the Amalekites predated and survived the flood is taught by the Zohar [Gen:25a {Hebrew insert}].
Further, Ramban does not seem to find any difficulty in the belief that others escaped the flood along with Og [see Ramban on "Bnei ha'elohim"].
If then there were individuals or races who survived the flood, there need be no contradiction between the fact of the flood and the results of modern investigation.
[11] The Flood as Non-Universal
According to the Talmud, the flood did not occur in the Land of Israel[12]. Some objected to that view since the passage in the flood account states that "all the mountains under the sky were covered by the waters", and surely there are no mountains not under the sky.
Thus the mountains in the Land of Israel, since they are "under the sky" must have been covered by the flood waters[13]. Another source resolves this by stating that although the rains which caused the flood did not fall in the Land of Israel, it was flooded beyond the highest mountain peaks by the water from surrounding areas[14]. Tosphot however holds that the passage "all the mountains under the sky were covered by the waters" means 'all the mountains which were located in a flooded area, were covered totally by the waters'.
Thus, according to Tosphot, even though the waters covered the highest mountain peaks of the surrounding lands, the flood waters did not enter the Land of Israel.
Conclusion
We have seen that although the Bible states clearly that the flood was totally universal, and fatal to all except Noah and his family, according to Jewish Tradition the flood was not universal, and it did not kill all the inhabitants of the earth outside of Noah and his family. In the light of this, the question of where the flood reached and where it did not, and of how many people were killed and how many survived, becomes more of an open question.
Clearly however, according to Jewish tradition the flood account in Genesis - when interpreted purely literally as a complete account of the flood - presents a more severe picture of events than that which actually occurred.
The Universality and Fatality of the Flood as a Literary Exaggeration
We accept that the entire Torah was written by Moses according to God's command. Nevertheless, we will attempt to show how this presents no contradiction to the possibility of interpreting the account of the flood as written by a prophet who exaggerated in the writing.
We will have to make two points: that the flood account could have been written by a prophet other than Moses, and that this prophet could have exaggerated. We begin with the latter point.
The Style of the Prophets
According to the Talmud[15], even when prophesying via Divine inspiration, the prophets spoke in their own words so that two prophets receiving the identical prophecy would formulate it in different ways.
Rambam explains that when the prophets speak, they do so in their own vocabulary and style[16]:
"It must be borne in mind that every prophet has his own peculiar diction, which is, as it were, his language, and it is in that language that the prophecy addressed to him is communicated to those who understand it".
Rambam continues and notes that it may be the style of a particular prophet to greatly exagerate the level of destruction which has occurred, and to use metaphors which translate a local catastrophe to cosmic scale:
"...every prophet has his own peculiar diction...After this preliminary remark you will understand the metaphor frequently employed by Isaiah, and less frequently by other prophets, when they describe the ruin of a kingdom or the destruction of a great nation in phrases like the following; - "The stars have fallen," "The heavens are overthrown", "The sun is darkened", "the earth is waste, and trembles", and similar metaphors.
According to Rambam, the prophet may use the word "Mankind" when "a nation" is what is actually meant. In Rambam's words:
"Sometimes the prophet uses the term 'Mankind' instead of 'the people of a certain place', whose destruction they predict; for example, Isaiah, speaking of the destruction of Israel says, "and the Lord will remove Man far away" [Isaiah 6:12]. So also Zephania [I:3:4], "and I will cut off Man from off the earth". "
In addition, a severe Divine punishment can be described as though it were complete annihilation.In Rambam's words:
"..[as in the passage] 'Therefore I will shake the heavens, and the earth shall remove out of her place, in the wrath of the Lord of hosts, and in the day of His fierce anger'[Isaiah13:23]. I do not think that any person is so foolish and blind, and so much in favour of the the literal sense of figurative and oratorical phrases, as to assume that at the fall of Babylonian kingdom a change took place in the nature of the stars of the heaven, or in the light of the sun and moon, or that the earth moved away from its center. For all this is merely the description of a country that has been defeated."
Based on the approach of Rambam outlined above, one can perhaps interpret a prophet's description of the complete annihilation of Mankind as actually referring to the severe punishment of one particular nation .
However, applying this interpretation to the Flood account in Genesis would seemingly be inappropriate. Rambam is speaking only of the words of the prophets, whereas the account of the Flood was written at the direct command of God, and written by Moses - who received a higher form of prophecy than that of any other prophet .
We now deal with this issue.
The Writing of the Torah
The Torah was recorded by Moses in Sinai, with different parts of it possibly written at different times during the years in the desert. The accounts of the
The book of Deuteronomy records Moses's words to the Jewish People prior to their entry into the Land of Israel. According to one interpretation, the book was written by Moses, at God's command, as the record of Moses's speeches. That is, either the speeches had been recorded at the time of their utterance, and then God commanded that every word be entered into the Torah, or God instructed Moses toi write it down from his [perfect] memory, or God dictated to Moses a verbatim transcript of Moses's words.
Besides the Laws and the description of events in the Bible, there are the accounts of the creation, the flood, the tower of babel, and the accounts of the Patriarchs.
The patriarchs were part of a line of tradition from Adam down to Moses. One can assume that the creation account was familiar to Adam, and that it was transmitted as part of a tradition. At some time, it might have been written down. Similarly with the account of the flood, and with the events which occured to the Patriarchs. These accounts would have been added to the already existing tradition, and would be transmitted at the very least to the leaders and Elders of every generation. Thus, they would have become available eventually to Moses, after the Elders recognized him as God's messenger.
Therefore, all the material in the Bible prior to the exodus would have been known to Moses, from the tradition transmitted to him. Events from that point on would be known to him as a contemporary, and as the protagonist of most of the events. Thus in effect, it may very well have been physically possible for Moses to have written the narrative elements of the Torah without God's dictation, by combining the various traditional material at his disposal. However, the choice of what to include, and the method of combining the various elements, would not be self evident. And, any resulting document would not be a Torah - it would be Moses's edited version of Human origins, and of Jewish history. Only by including material at God's express command, and in the manner dictated by God[17], and with the inclusion of the Divinely mandated laws, could this become the Torah.
If this is indeed the way that God told Moses to write the Torah, then one should not be surprised that the individual accounts are coloured by the perspectives and understandings of the people involved in the recording of the events. Even if these accounts were recorded by prophets at the time, working under the influence of Divine inspiration, the result would still reflect the individual psyches and approach of the prophet.
Furthermore, according to Maharal[18], the entire Torah is written from the perspective of the reality as perceived by human beings. Thus if humans at that time considered the reality to have been that all life had been eradicated other than their own family - as was the case with the daughters of Lot - then perhaps this is why the Flood is so described in the Torah.
Therefore, one can perhaps conclude that the description of the complete annihilation of Mankind in the flood account can in actuality be referring to the severe punishment of one particular nation or group of people. Thus we may perhaps conclude that the flood was not in actuality a universal one[19].
This would also explain why according to Jewish tradition the Flood did not wipe out all Mankind outside the Ark.
Indeed, there are many traditions across the world of a catastrophic flood which devastated the world, leaving only the inhabitants of that area alive. Thus, humans at the time of the flood may have considered the reality to have been that all life had been eradicated other than their own town or family. This was similarly the case with the daughters of Lot, who thought that the destruction of Sodom had left them and their father as the only living humans in the world.
Alternatively, at the time that the flood account was recorded by the prophet , the common impression may have been that only one group of humans had been left to repopulate the world.
In accordance then with the view of Maharal that the Torah is written from the perspective of the reality as perceived by human beings, one can perhaps conclude that the Flood is described in the Torah as a universal one only because this was the perception of those who survived it, or the perception or wording of the prophet who recorded it.
The Writing of the Torah: According to the Talmud[20], God told Moses the various sections of the Torah at different times. Then, at the end of the forty years in the desert, Moses compiled the sections into one unified Torah. According to one view[21], as each section was told to Moses, he wrote it down exactly, and compiled the Torah from these written records. According to another view[22], the sections were memorized by Moses as they were given, and were only recorded in writing when the last section had been given[23]. At that point, Moses compiled the Torah from the memorized portions.
For example, according to Ramban, Genesis [and more] was recorded by Moses after he came down from Mt. Sinai. However, the last eight passages of the Torah - dealing with the death of Moses - were written by Yehoshua[24].
Ramban notes that Moses wrote the Torah anonymously - that is, without saying at the beginning of Genesis something like "these are the words which I Moses have written..."[25]. According to Ramban, this was because the words he wrote in the Torah had already been written before[26], and therefore Moses was "like a scribe who copies from an old book".
The book of Deuteronomy records Moses's words to the Jewish People prior to their entry into the Land of Israel. According to one interpretation, the book was written by Moses, at God's command, as the record of Moses's speeches. That is, either the speeches had been recorded at the time of their utterance, and then God commanded that every word be entered into the Torah, or God instructed Moses to write it down from his [perfect] memory, or God dictated to Moses a verbatim transcript of Moses's words.
The remaining four books of the Bible contain both Laws and descriptions of various events. For example, there are the accounts of the creation, the flood, the tower of babel, and the accounts of the Patriarchs.
Historical Records available to Moses: The Patriarchs were part of a line of tradition from Adam down to Moses. One can assume that the creation account was familiar to Adam, and that he transmitted it to his descendants as part of a tradition. At some time, it might have been written down. Similarly, the account of the flood, and the events which occured to the Patriarchs, would be recorded by those who experienced these events. - all of them eing prophets. These accounts could also be recorded in written form - if not by the actual protagonists, then at least by their descendants. These accounts would then be added to the already existing tradition.
The complete tradition would be transmitted to every succeeding generation - at the very least to the leaders and Elders of every generation. Thus, the entire tradition would have become available eventually to Moses, after the Elders recognized him as God's messenger.
Therefore, all the material in the Bible prior to the exodus would have been known to Moses, from the tradition transmitted to him. Events from that point on would be known to him as a contemporary, and as the protagonist of most of the events. Thus in effect, even though God dictated to Moses the entire Torah, it may very well have been physically possible for Moses to have written the narrative elements of the Torah without God's dictation, by combining the various traditional material at his disposal[27]. However, the choice of what to include, and the method of combining the various elements, would not be self evident[28]. And, any resulting document would not be a Torah - it would be Moses's edited version of Human origins, and of Jewish history. However, if Moses included material only at God's express command, in the manner dictated by God[29], with the inclusion of the Divinely mandated laws, then this could become the Torah.
This may indeed be the way that God told Moses to write the Torah[30] . If so, then one should not be surprised that the individual accounts are coloured by the perspectives and understandings of the people involved in the recording of the events. Since these accounts were initially recorded not by God, and not via Moses who had a higher form of prophecy, but by earlier prophets at the time of the events or later, then although they were under the influence of Divine inspiration, the result would still reflect their individual psyches and approaches.
Furthermore, according to Maharal[31], although the entire Torah was written according to God's command, it is written from the perspective of the reality as perceived by human beings. Thus if humans at the time of the flood considered the reality to have been that all life had been eradicated other than their own family - as was later the case with the daughters of Lot - then perhaps this is why the Flood is so described in the Torah.
The Account of the Flood: As a result of the above, one can perhaps conclude that the description of the complete annihilation of Mankind in the flood account can in actuality be referring to the severe punishment of one particular nation or group of people. Thus we may perhaps conclude that the flood was not in actuality a universal one[32] .
This would also explain why according to Jewish tradition the Flood did not wipe out all Mankind outside the Ark.
Indeed, there are many traditions across the world of a catastrophic flood which devastated the world, leaving only the inhabitants of that area alive. Thus, humans at the time of the flood may have considered the reality to have been that all life had been eradicated other than their own town or family. This was similarly the case with the daughters of Lot, who thought that the destruction of Sodom had left them and their father as the only living humans in the world.
Alternatively, at the time that the flood account was recorded by the prophet , the common impression may have been that only one group of humans had been left to repopulate the world.
In accordance then with the view of Maharal that the Torah is written from the perspective of the reality as perceived by human beings, one can perhaps conclude that the Flood is described in the Torah as a universal one only because this was the perception of those who survived it, or the perception or wording of the prophet who recorded it.
The Creation Account: In an analogous manner, the creation account may have originated with Adam, or with one of his descendants who was a prophet. For example, we are told by Tradition that Abraham - after recognizing the existence of God, creator of the universe - studied in the Yeshiva established by Shem, son of Noah. One can expect that Abraham, who had come to the Yeshiva because of his recognotion of the existence of a creator, had asked what tradition there was regarding the creation. He must have been taught some form of a creation account - one received by Shem either via prophetic inspiration or from his father Noah. This creation account would then be passed down the generations until it reached Moses.
Thus the creation account received by Moses via tradition would probably have been the Divinely inspired vision of creation as expressed in the words and style of the prophet with whom it originated. This creation account would probably have been the traditionally accepted account of the creation among the Jewish People from the time of Abraham until the exodus from Egypt.
At Sinai - and perhaps at various other point during the forty years in the desert - God dictated to Moses the contents of the Torah. If God then commanded Moses to include this creation account in the Torah - or God dictated it to Moses word by word - then the creation account in the Torah is at one and the same time the literal Divine Word, and a Divinely dictated copy of an account written by a prophet under the influence of his individual psyche, and according to his particular style.
And, although in this approach the Torah contain a subjective element, this is not contrary to Jewish tradition since, as we have seen, according to Maharal[33] the entire Torah is written from the perspective of the reality as perceived by human beings.
An Objection: One can however present the following objection. According to Jewish Tradition, every letter in the Torah is there for a reason. There is a mystical and religious significance even to the 'crowns' on the letters [as written in a ritually proper Torah].
If the accounts of the flood and the Patriarchs and so on were recorded by humans, how can this be the case? Even if these accounts were recorded by prophets, since the language in which they express their prophecy varies according to their personality[see Rambam quote above], how can we say that there are Divine mysteries in every letter of the Torah?
The Divine Mysteries of the Torah: Every word in the Torah originates with God. Every letter and combination of letters in the Torah contains Divine mysteries.
On the other hand, parts of the Torah are records of events involving solely human beings, rather than supernatural events initiated by God. How can a record of events occurring to an ordinary person contain Divine mysteries?
Further, some of the accounts in the Bible are presented as records of words spoken by man - including ordinary people such as Lavan, Betuel, Eliezer, Hagar, Yitro and so on and even evil men such as Esav, Pharaoh, Balak and so on. How can a record of the actual words spoken by an ordinary person, or especially by an evil man, contain Divine mysteries?
Thus we can see that the problem we raised previously is not the essential problem. If it can be that there are Divine mysteries and religious significance in the words of Lavan, Betuel, Eliezer, Hagar, Yitro, Esav, Pharaoh, Balak and so on, there can just as well be Divine mysteries and religious significance in the words of the accounts recorded by chroniclers - especially if they are prophets.
A Possible Approach to a Solution: Our problem reduces then to the question of how these words can become imbued with Divine significance. We are of course not responsible to explain how this could be - we are simply told that it is a fact. Nevertheless, in the following we will attempt to present a possible approach to a solution:
According to Jewish Tradition, God first created the Torah - a spiritual entity - and then created the universe by using the Torah as a blueprint. The Torah as known to us is the 'shadow' or 'projection' of the spiritual Torah into our physical universe. Thus, the dialogues recorded in the Torah are, in some acausal sense, 'designed into the universe'. God can design and correlate the universe and the Torah in such a way that the words spoken by ordinary people - words spoken of their own free will and not predestined by God - can possess holiness and contain Divine mysteries [34].
This concept can perhaps aid us in understanding other difficulties, for example Rambam's teaching regarding sacrifice.
In a famous passage in his "Guide to the Perplexed" Rambam writes that the sacrifices were instituted in order to channel the then-prevalent religious instinct for sacrifice in the Jewish people, based on their earlier pagan worship. [35] Following our approach outlined above, we can interpret Rambam's idea in this way:
The mitzva to sacrifice was mandated in order to channel natural urges which had previously been expressed in an idolatrous context. The urge to sacrifice is a natural instinct, and is thus a product of nature. As such, it comprised part of God's design for the universe, part of the universe's blueprint - the Torah. Thus, despite its prior service in the name of idolatry, the mitzva of sacrifice is of Divine origin and derives solely from the Torah.
As Rambam points out, sacrifice was mandated in order to channel people away from idolatry - the same purpose for which the creation account [with its introduction of the idea of creation-ex-nihilo] was revealed to Man.
The Creation Account: Another application of this idea would be to the creation account. As we have seen above, there was - or is - in Man a natural urge to worship Power. Since this urge to worship Power resulted in sacrifice to idolatry, sacrifice was chanelled to the worship of God. Similarly, there is in Man a natural urge to search for explanations regarding his origins. Since this natural urge to search for explanations regarding his origins resulted in the pagan creation accounts, these were adapted to the teaching of Monotheism.
Just as Man's urge to sacrifice originates in his genes and environment and therefore in the universe's bluprint - the Torah - so too Man's urge to explain origins derives from the Torah. Just as the practice of sacrifice was idolatry, but was transformed into Torah, so too the pagan creation accounts were idolatrous, but were transformed into Torah.
Clearly, whatever the origin of the Genesis creation account, it is in the Torah and therefore is Holy. Just as God can create the universe in such a way that the words of man are imbued with Holiness and Divine mysteries, so to God could create the universe in such a way that a creation account originating with mortals can be imbued with Holiness and Divine mysteries.
The Creation Plot: Literal or Allegorical?: Obviously, if the creation "plot" was taken from previously existing creation accounts, it is not necessary to accept it as meant literally.
Nevertheless, the similarities between the Biblical creation account and the creation accounts of other nations may be due to a common, Divine, origin. If that is the case, then the "plot" (as well as the theology accompanying it) may possibly be meant literally.
There is thus no necessity to interpret the biblical account allegorically even if it is adapted from the accounts of other nations - it might be meant literally since the other creation accounts might have been based on the truth. However, the tradition handed down together with the Bible, and recorded in the Talmud, mentions that the account could be interpreted allegorically [36].
That the creation account is meant allegorically can mean two things:
I. The creation "plot" is allegorical, but it is an allegory composed by God, and was related to prophets living before Moses. Thus, it is the source of all the similar creation accounts.
II. The creation "plot" is adapted from pagan accounts devised by man . (26)
In either case, the "plot", by being chosen by God, becomes God's word, and thus acquires a great significance.
However, if the second option is correct, one could ask why God used a pagan account instead of revealing the true account. If the originators of the pagan accounts were inspired men, and were spiritually advanced for their day, perhaps one could understand this adaptation. However, if they are seen as mere pagan accounts, why choose them?
One could perhaps answer that if it is desired to provide only an allegorical account, then any allegorical creation account which would implicitly contain the moral ideas discussed previously [Section (??)] would seem suitable. However, what would be the most natural type of account in which to embed, implicitly, these ideas?
There were already creation myths circulating in ancient times in the near and middle east. These accounts were quite pagan and did not contain any true moral message - they were simply "explanations" of the origin of man and of the world, without being "teachings" as to the significance of creation, and of its ramifications, etc.
One of the principle messages of the Bible is that man is not an "animal": unlike them he can channel his instincts, 'sublimate' them, or harness them, to achieve with their aid lofty goals.
The creation myths of ancient times expressed deep-seated emotions; of man's helplessness before nature and the gods, of his insignificance, of the arbitrariness of life, etc. (a sort of ancient form of existentialist despair).
The Bible is a teaching which is in direct contradiction to this sort of cosmic pessimism (see "meaning of allegory"). What better way for God to get the Biblical message across, and to negate the pagan message, than to adapt the pagan accounts to the message of the Bible? This would
1. assure an easy transition of acceptance from the pagan account to the biblical account;
2. relate to the deep emotion reflected in the pagan account by using the same frame;
3. allow the tremendous contrast between the biblical optimism and purpose and the pagan pessimism and arbitrariness to be presented in a literary form rather than as polemic.
A study of the biblical creation account with its moral implications provides one with the insight to see how truly empty of "meaning" the pagan myths are. If the two accounts were cast in totally different molds, they would not be easily comparable, and the emptiness of the pagan accounts would not be so evident.Thus, the similarity of the biblical creation account to the creation myths of the ancient and near east.
Of course as we have seen, the acceptance of this similarity is also consonant with a belief in the literal nature of the biblical account .
Part IV: The Flood as an Evolutionary Selection Process
From the preceeding case of Amalek and Og, we can see that even the most traditionalist interpretation of the Bible can be seemingly totally against the clear meaning of the Bible.
Another approach to the understanding of the alleged universality of the flood, is to attribute its universality only to a specific section of mankind which fits the description of the relevant passages. That is those who qualify as " ha'adam asher barati...yetzer lev ha'adam ra min'urav". Only these were univerasally destroyed.
Another approach is as follows:There must have been a number of evolutionary ancestors of Mankind lying between today's human and today's apes, and also there must have been related branches off the ape line - like for example tghe Neanderthalers, who were a parallel branch, not our ancestors. However, there are no such ancestors or parallel branches alive today.
Thus, one can perhaps postulate thatat the time of the flood, there was more than one race existent - the human race of today, and others. One can then perhaps conclue that it was the ........... who were universally destroyed in the flood.
Og and Amalek: Perhaps one can make a distinction between humanity as represented by Noah and that represented by the giant Og. According to Midrash Og was 15 feet tall, and thus was probably not of original human stock, but of a priorly evolved race. Similarly, Amalek is the only group which it is incumbent on the children of Israel to fight, and it is a group which is genetically rather than culturally determined. Perhaps they are the perennial arch-enemies of the Jewish people because genetically they represent a different, non-moral, strain of Homo Sapiens Sapiens.[37]
If this is so, then we can conclude that only Homo Sapiens Sapiens Voluntas was destroyed in the flood, and thus that when the Bible tells us that all mankind was destroyed, it means all of Homo Sapiens Sapiens Voluntas and not necessarily all of everyone else.
This would explain the widespread evidence uncovered by archaeologists that there were civilizations which were seemingly not destroyed in a flood 4,000 years ago.
It would also strengthen the case for there being non-Homo Sapiens Sapiens Voluntas present at the time of the creation of Adam - just as "all mankind" clearly refers only to a certain portion of Homo Sapiens Sapiens in the flood account since we are told that at least one survived, so too the creation of mankind in the creation account possibly refers only to the creation of Homo Sapiens Sapiens Voluntas.
One can perhaps also adapt the remarks above regarding the interchangeability of "Mankind" with "a nation", and "total annihilation" with "local diaster", as indicating the possibility that the "creation of all Mankind" may be interpreted as the "emergence of Homo Voluntas".
However, according to the Rambam "it is one of the fundamental principles of the Law that the Universe has been created ex nihilo, and that of the human race, one individual being, Adam, was created" [38].
Here the Rambam links two seemingly unrelated conflicts. One conflict is between the idea that Adam was created alone vs. the hypothesis that an entire race being created. The second conflict is that between the idea of creation vs. the idea of the eternity of the universe. Rambam connects the two because he fels that one implies the other, as follows: If the universe is eternal, there was no creation of man, and therefore there was always a human race . Therefore Adam was not the only human existing at the time of the events related in Genesis.
However, Rambam himself admits that if there was a convincing proof of the eternity of the universe, he would accept it and interpret the creation idea as 'allegory' just as he did with anthropomorphisms. Therefore, that Adam was the only Human is as much - and as little - dogma as that creation occurred . That is, if there is convincing proof to the contrary, we can accept it!
One can perhaps assume that Rambam's elevation to the status of dogma of the idea of individual creation (vs. race creation ) was due to his apprehension that belief in race creation would be within the context of belief in an eternal universe. However, it is clear that although the eternity of the universe might imply the existence of a race "Adam" rather than an individual "Adam", the opposite is not the case. Thus, in our case where they are unrelated, perhaps we can assume that Rambam would not consider individual creation as dogma.
If individual creation is not necessarily dogma - even Rambam agrees its acceptance is contingent on their not being any proof to the contrary,i.e. that such proof is theoretically possible - it would seem that the reason we are told that only one man was created is to make the moral/pedagogical points related by the Mishnah and Tosefta of Sanhedrin. That is, it is quite possible that in actuality more than one man was created, but we are told not to derive sanctions for antisocial behaviour from this fact.
The Rambam however states in strong form that only one human was created. Therefore, we could perhaps be safer in saying that indeed only one human being was created; i.e. only one moral being was created, the rest were not moral beings and thus do not count fully as "human beings". In any case, even in the evolutionary theory, all humans stem from one original human being; thus the Midrash and the Rambam can be interpreted literally[39].
Thus we see that in the first account, humans are created in male and female form in unspecified numbers, and even the second account deals mostly with a generic 'man' and 'woman'.
Adam as Progenitor of the Human Race due to the selection of his genetic line via the survival of Noah
All mankind today derives from Noah and Noah was a direct descendant of Adam (the lineage is given in Genesis). Thus, even if there were human contemporaries of Adam, they died in the flood, and only Adam's line remained - leaving us all as descendants of a single unique pair. In this sense as well - as the only humans whose descendants survived - Adam and Eve were the "sole" progenitors of the human race. Indeed, since the Torah was given to a world populated only by Adam's descendants (because of the "selection" caused by the flood), and Adam was a species apart (Homo Voluntas - as were therefore his descendants) it is quite reasonable to speak of Adam and Eve as the only ancestors of man, and of Adam and Eve therefore as the only "humans" at creation-time.
This interpretation is however problematic because we solve one difficulty - that of the creation account and evolutionary theory - only by involving ourselves in another conflict - between the Biblical flood account and geological science[40].
Part V
In this section we will interpret the accounts in a way that is not purely literal. one must however take care not to exceed the limits of traditionally acceptable interpretation.
Previous authors have made similar types of attempts.....
Sources from Louis Ginzberg "Jewish Law and Lore"
Yakov b. Aba Mari Anatoli [1230] "Malmad Hatalmidim" [Trans."A Goad to Scholars" by Lyck 1866. (in H.U. Lib.)] Allegorizes Noah and flood story.
Rashba said book should be banned.
Hoshea [12:5] interprets Yakov's struggle with the 'man' as a struggle taking place in prayer.
Zohar: Beha'alotkha III:152
war of 5 and 4 kings = allegory. "Livyat Khen" Levi b. Avraham Villefranche [1245-1315] [Encyc. Jud. 4:898 , 11:91]
David B. Yomtov Ibn Aba Bilya [contemporary of RAlbag] "Yesodot Hamaskil" and "Derekh La'asot Kharuzim": All nisim and all narratives in Torah are allegory. Enc.Jud. "quoted by Samuel Zarza". 8:1158.
Abba Mari Astruc "Minkhat Knaot" p153 [1838]. From Breishis until somewhere in Shmot is all mashal.
A) The creation accounts as literal descriptions of non-physical events
According to Ramkhal[41], the Jewish mystical tradition teaches that Adam existed purely on the spiritual realm, and only became a physical being after the Garden of Eden incident. Clearly then, according to this, the events in the Garden of Eden were not physical events, nor was the Garden a physical one. Further, since this non-physical Garden was located within the universe whose creation was described in Genesis 1, we are led to the conclusion that this universe was not a physical universe.
Thus, the events described in the first two creation accounts are not descriptions of the creation of our physical universe. They are instead descriptions relating to a universe in some non-physical realm, albeit perhaps literal descriptions [or at least as literal as such things can be in Human language] of the events in that realm.
B) The Creation Accounts as literal descriptions of mental events:
The First Creation Account: According to many Jewish sources, God first created the universe in thought[42]. The first creation account may be the description of the creation of this thought-universe[43].
In this way, we are not claiming that the first account is allegorical, but rather that it is a description not of physical events, but rather of Divine mental events. Indeed, this type of approach can be found in traditional Jewish sources as well:
We are told by the Midrash and by the Zohar that the Torah is the blueprint from which our universe was created. How can this be?
R. Khayim Volozhiner, the outstanding disciple of the Gaon of Vilna, was the author of a mystical treatise entitled "Nefesh HaKhayim".
In this work, he states that the Torah is, so to speak, 'of God', a 'part' of the Creator - the aspect called "Khokhma" , "Wisdom". Thus the Torah is on a level higher than that of any of the Emanations of God which form the strata of the cosmos, including all spiritual and physical creations[44]. As a result, it can serve as a blueprint for the spiritual as well as the physical cosmos. Being the aspect of Wisdom, the Torah can perhaps be considered as the Mental blueprint of the universe.
Of course since the Torah preceeded the creation of space-time-matter-energy, it could not be a physical entity. Also, since it is a spiritual aspect of God, it cannot be 'written', certainly not written in human language . Thus, R. Khayim states, the Torah which we possess is a translation into physicality and into human terms of the beyond-human-comprehension actual Torah[45].
Nevertheless, says R. Khayim, the Torah which was the blueprint for creation was the Torah as we know it. That is, when we are told that God created the universe by looking into the Torah, what is meant is that God looked at the words "Bereisheet bara Elokim et hashamayim ve'et ha'aretz" ["In the beginning God created heaven and earth"], and then God created heaven and earth. God looked at the words "Yehi ohr" - "Let there be light[ohr]" - and then created ohr.
Thus, the first creation account is the actual blueprint of creation.
It would perhaps follow that there must be two creation accounts: first the creation account into which God looked to create the universe, and in addition an account of the actual creation, that is, an account of God's looking into the first account and creating the universe. In the Bible, there are three creation accounts. The first, an account of 'the six days of creation'; the second, the Garden of eden account; the third, the few passages in the beginning of Gen 5:1 ["These are the generations...".]
The first and third creation accounts are then the description of the creation of the universe-blueprint and the actual creation of the physical universe from this blueprint.
The second account tells us at what stage God created the universe. That is, that when all was Mentally designed - physical universe, moral being and natural law - God actually created the universe at the corresponding big bang-emergent stage immediately prior to the emergence of a moral being[46]. The second creation account therefore tells us that effectively, the universe emerged into reality with the emergence of conscious free-willed moral man [see Chapter 7].
However, how are we to interpret the actual events related in the Garden of eden account?
Prophesy as Visions: According to Rambam, All the Divine communications received by the prophets of the Bible were received during a Divinely induced vision or dream - except for the case of Moses. Moses is the only prophet who could actually 'speak directly' to God.
Rambam further states that all those who saw 'angels' were actually experiencing a Divinely induced vision or dream in which they 'saw angels'. Indeed, Rambam states that even angels seen by two people at the same time [as with Manoakh and his wife, parents of Samson], were seen in a dream/vision by both simultaneously.
Also, the entire episode of the speaking of Balaam's donkey was a vision according to Rambam. Thus one can see that even when long dialogues are recorded, and seemingly physical events occur, they can nevertheless actually be referring to mental events in the mind of a prophet.
Rambam also states that Ya'akov[Jacob]'s wrestling with the mysterious stranger - the angel - occurred in a prophetic vision or dream. This despite the fact that Ya'akov had a limp after the angel damaged his 'nasheh' sinew during the struggle. Thus a Biblical narrative in which an event occurs, and then seems to have an effect later, may nevertheless refer to a mental event[47].
We could interpret the visions/dreams of a prophet as a means to test the prophet's moral strength. God creates a complete mental scenario in the prophet's mind, in order to test the response. The prophet at the time is not in an ordinary sleep state. Instead he is as fully in control of his mental characteristics as he would be if he were wide awake. He can exert his will, and use his intelligence, exactly as he would were he awake. The response may be purely mental, but it is exactly that - Man's deepest intention - which interests God. For God to test someone, there is no need to put the person into an actual physical situation. Instead, a complete scenario is constructed and inserted into the person's mental awareness in such a way that it seems perfectly real, yet allows his psyche, intelligence, and will to operate as though he were awake[48].
The Garden of Eden Account as the Description of a Vision: Perhaps the second creation account can be interpreted as a literal description of mental events in the mind of Man, rather than as a literal description of actual physical events. The second account is about Man's obedience to God, Man's connection to God, Man's use of free will and so on, all of which are mental issues, and which have to be determined at the mental level Rambam states that all prophetic encounters other than those of Moses are to be interpreted as having occurred in dreams or visions. The question is whether or not Adam is considered as a prophet. And if so, was he perhaps on a different level, perhaps similar to that of Moses, or even higher, so that his prophetic experiences were not restricted to dreams and visions.
According to many sources, until his rebellion Adam existed on a higher spiritual level than Man today. Therefore one might conclude that, like with Moses, the events were not part of a vision. On the other hand, if the events are such as would be impossible except with a being on the spiritual level of Adam , then perhaps it is incorrect to say that they were actual physical events.
Alternatively, the dialogue between God and Adam continued after the eating of the Tree of Knowledge, without any apparent change in the level or type of communication. Therefore if Adam's level after eating was that of ordinary man, perhaps this means that his dialogues previously were also of the ordinary prophetic type.
It may be however that Adam's level changed only after the expulsion from Eden, so that one cannot say as above that the earlier interchanges wre at the ordinary prophetic level. In fact the expulsion of Adam from Eden might mean precisely this downward change in his status, in the same way that his placement in Eden meant an increase in his status[See Gen. R. 15:5 and 16:8] . Indeed after the expulsion there is no recorded dialogue between God and Adam , and no record of any non-natural event occurring to Adam. Thus perhaps all the events recounted occurred only while Adam was on a higher level - that is, while he was 'in the Garden of Eden'.
Nevertheless as we stated above if the events are such as would be impossible except with a being on the spiritual level of Adam , then perhaps it is incorrect to say that they were actual physical events.
Also, perhaps even with Moses events such as the burning bush occurred in a vision, whereas dialogue with God occurred while he was fully awake. Furthermore, even if prophetic events such as the burning bush were perceived by Moses when fully awake, this does not mean that they occurred in the physical universe. Rather, they could just as well have been mental events experienced by Moses while in a fully awakened state. That is, Moses perceived the bush to be on fire, and actually physically walked over to it, and actually physically removed his shoes, and actually physically spoke the words recorded in the Torah. However, the sight of the burning bush was present in his mind only - another person in the vicinity would not have noticed it [unless God specifically placed that 'view' into their mind]. Similarly, God's voice sounded in Moses's mind, but would not have been heard by anyone else.
Thus a person observing the entire event wouldnot see any non-natural event. They would see only Moses's responses to the Divine, not the Divine itself. [ As Bil'am did not see the angel which his donkey saw and perhaps thought his donkey had gone mad, those watching Moses would probably consider his actions to be an indication of insanity.][Bil'am's seeing the donkey swerve for no reason, and hitting and cursing it, may also have been part of his vision. Or, the hitting and cursing could have been real......etc.]
Of course Rambam states clearly that only Moses was on level sufficiently high for him to be able to experience dialogue with God in a full waking state. However, if Adam was like other prophets, so that his dialogues with God, and his non-natural experiences, occurred in a vision rather than physically, surely Rambam would have mentioned this.
Rambam does perhaps refer to Adam and Noah in a very veiled manner in II:42. He says there:
"from the cases which I mentioned, you can learn also regarding the cases which I didn't/won't mention."
The commentator "Shem Tov" comments on this:
"cases which I didn't/won't mention": "That which is better left unsaid due to the fact that it contradicts the beliefs of the masses, and those of some luminaries."
As mentioned above, it may be that Rambam was here hinting that the rule be applied to Adam and Noah as well as all other prophets.
Perhaps there is another reason why Rambam does not mention Adam [or mention him explicitly] in this connection. The basic motivation in interpreting prophetic encounters as Rambam did was to present all such events as being in accordance with the operation of the laws of nature. However, in the case of thye events occuring to Adam, _there was no polemical need to have them in agreement with the laws of nature. According to Rambam - based on 'all the Rabbis' - the entire Garden of Eden story occurred prior to the institution by God of the laws of nature. Thus, since these events were not in conflict with the laws of nature, Rambam felt no need to consider these events as occurring in a vision. Either way, if one interprets these events as occurring when the laws of nature were in effect, then perhaps one can categorize Adam's experience with all other prophetic experiences, so that they occurred in a vision. If on the other hand they occurred prior to the institution of physical law, then they necessarily did not occur in a real physical plane.
From Rambam's words it is not clear whether or not he considers Adam to have been a prophet at all, and if so whether he was a prophet on the same level as all the other prophets other than Moses. In his words ["Guide" II:39]:
"..the prophecy of Moses was different from that of other prophets; we will now explain that this distinction alone qualified him for proclaiming the Torah, a mission without parallel in the history from Adam to Moses, or among the prophets who came after him."
This seems to imply that Rambam did consider Adam to be a prophet. However, the next quote:
"There were prophets before Moses, as the patriarchs Shem, Eber, Noah, Meshuselakh, and Khanokh...."seems to imply that Adam was not a prophet.
The only events which can be initiated by Man are his free willed decisions. All else occurs in accordance with the laws of nature, including its inherent random element [due to the quantum nature of events at their fundamental lelvel]. Man is therefore responsible only for his freely willed decisions, nothing else. That is, only the mentasl events connected with the making of a free willed decision is of moral relevance.
When one man judges another though, since he cannot know the other's thoughts, he can rely only on what is apparent to him - namely, the actions of the subject, and perhaps the consequences of that action. However, one cannot always correctly judge the subject's intentions and emotions from his actions. And certainly one's intentions are not always directly deducible from the results of one's actions. Furthermore, the mental struggle accompanying a decision are not visible in the action which follows the decision.
Therefore it is the mental arena which is of interest, not the physical. Indeed, for an understanding of the moral dimension, if the exact sequence of mental events are known, no additional information is added by an analysis of the consequent physical actions and their physical ramifications. If one knows whether the person weighed carefully all the factors known to him, whether he was sincere, whether he felt that he was acting correctly or not etc., then one knows all that one needs to know to make a moral evaluation of the subject. The actual physical events and their consequences are irrelevant to the question of whether or not the subject acted rightly or wrongly.
Therefore even if the events in Eden were to occur in a purely physical context, the only elements of interest to God would be the mental events in the minds of the protagonists. In fact, not only is it sufficient to present the dilemma in a mental rather than physical context, it may be necessary. Physical scenarios are limited by considerations such as conformance to the laws of nature, and they may involve unwanted interference by extraneous elements. Only a mental construct can be designed to provide the optimal scenario. Therefore, since it is within God's power to create the situation directly in the subject's mind, we can perhaps assume that God would do so.
[49].
Thus God could construct in a human mind mind an entire scenario, leading the person to believe that it is real, and then test the subject in that way[50].
Indeed, in the case of a seminal conflict such as that presented to Man in Eden, it is emminently desireable to ensure that no extraneous events interfere with the situation. The best way to ensure this is to present the conflict within the context of a directly implanted mental vision.
As stated above, Rambam states that even angels seen by two people at the same time [as with Manoakh and his wife, parents of Samson], were seen in a dream/vision by both simultaneously. Thus it is possible for both Adam and Eve to have sharted the same vision, with the events in the vision interacting in the same way that events would interact in an actual physical context[51]. Indeed, perhaps there was an entire race of bewings who experienced this shared vision.
Elsewhere[52], we explored the possibility that an entire race of moral beings were created - a race called 'Adam', that is, 'Man'. [53]. If this is so, then it may be that all Mankind experienced some mental 'rite of passage' simultaneously, corresponding to the events depicted in the Garden of Eden account.
For Mankind, the moral stage was initiated by some Divinely-implanted race-wide mental activity which endowed Man's mind with a free will[54].
The Noahide flood as the description of a vision experienced by the prophet Noah
We have previously considered the possibility that the Garden of Eden account in Genesis is a description of the mental events in a vision experienced by the first human being [ called there 'Adam'], or by the first human couple ['Adam' and 'Eve'], or, at some seminal point in its development, by the race of Man as a whole.
We now consider the possibility that the account of the Noahide flood is actually the description of a vision experienced by the prophet Noah - and perhaps also by his family [or, at some crucial stage in the development of Mankind, by selected individuals across the world, or by the entire human race].
The Flood Account: An Empty Stage: One of the astonishing elements of the Noah story is the total absence of any reference to Noah's contemporaries. Other than a very colorless reference tp his wife and children, noone else appears in the entire account.
In fact, one gets the impression that even these characters appear in the story only because their pesence is necessary to the coherence of the entire plot. If not for Noah's wife and children, Mankind would have ended with the death of Noah[55]. Thus the cast of characters in the Noah story is essentially a minimum cast. Noah is the only active character, with the rest being almost lifeless additions carried along for the ride in the interest of literary consistency.
The absence of any reference to Noah's contemporaries is all the more striking when compared to the only similar type of disaster to befall man - the story of the destruction of Sodom[56]. There we are given a clear picture of the inhabitants of the city, and we feel that these people perhaps deserve their punishment. Further, we are told of Lot's wife, whose very humanly natural curiosity about what is occuring to Sodom gives the story of its destruction an element of versimilitude.
How is it that for over fifty years[57] Noah builds his ark, and there is no record in the Bible of anyone asking him what it is for, arguing with him, laughing at him. Then when the animals come from across the world, two by two, seven by seven, all the great beasts and all the creeping insects, and everything in between; how is it that noone remarked on this, that noone repented, that noone decided to join Noah.
Then when the waters began to rise, why are there no people clamoring to gain entrance into the ark. Where are the cries of those being drowned[58]. Why is there no reaction at all by Noah and his family to the terrible destruction around them, to the deluge which has wiped out all their relatives[59]. Why no reaction to the terrifying emptiness immediately after the flood.
The silence of the Bible on these matters is shattering. As it stands, the story is so intensely restrained, so laconic and unemotional, that it is almost impossible to accept it as a description of actual historical occurences.
All this leads us to investigate the possibility that the entire account is a description of a vision experienced by Noah[60].
According to Rambam [II:39] Noah was a prophet. At the same time, Rambam intimates that Noah did not prophesy to his contemporaries. That is, Noah did not claim to be God's messenger promulgasting in the name of God any Divine message to any portion of Mankind. Why didn't God command Noah to wander about and warn the inhabitants of the world as to the upcoming flood, as Yonah was sent to warn the inhabitants of Nineveh?
This lack of interest in the rest of mankind, and their toal lack of involvement in the flood account, may serve as an additional indication that the flood account is not a description of actual physical events.
We are therefore strengthened somewhat in our proposition that the entire account of the flood is that of a vision experienced by Noah [or by all Mankind].
Why the Flood would Occur in a Vision rather than as a Real Physical Event
[61]
[1] According to the Torah, a person can perform miracles and yet nevertheless be a false prophet. Therefore miracles cannot be accepted as a proof of the words of the one who performs them.
Most miracles performed by God for the Jewish people were done 'in the way of nature' - or at least in what the viewers considered to be 'in the way of nature'. Thus miracles could not serve as proofs of the existence of God.
For example, today the initial miracles performed by Moses in front of Pharao would be considered supernatural and therefore as proof of the existence of God . However at the time they were explained away as 'natural magic'.
Even miracles like the splitting of the sea did not convince the Jewish people for long - they began complaining very soon afterwards.
[2] [see Appendices Chapters A and B for a discussion of the idea of the eternity of the universe as proposed by the ancient Greek philosophers, and in modern times.]
[3] Similarly with the Noahide flood. It is impossible for the events described in the Noah story to have occurred under the workings of natural law, and therefore it is evident that the flood was a miraculous event. Therefore the flood is not the type of event which can leave traces in the physical universe [See XXXXX(my article on the subject).].
[4] This all assumes that the geography of that time was similar to our's today. If however it was different, with today's islands above water etc., they would be able to leave them and return.
Also, even today's geography allows most animals in the world to reach the place of Noah's ark, and to return: north and south America are connected, and are both connected to asia via the bering straits, which are frozen over in the winter. Asia is connected to both Europe and Africa, and thus the entire world is connected except for Australia, the Phillipines, Japan, Iceland etc.
The ark rested on Mt. Ararat [ near what is today the border of Turkey and the Soviet Union], an area in Asia close to both Europe and to Africa.
Also, the command to build the ark was given 120 [?] years prior to the onset of the flood.
[5] Either directly or by implanting in them the drive to make their way to the ark, in the way that migrating birds fly thousands of miles, and salmon swim hundreds of miles upstream.
[6] However, motion of the sun about the earth could produce the same effect of a delay in the setting of the sun.
[7]
The Maharal states that since God gave Man the prerogative of 'giving names' [Gen. II] to all that exists, everything that is written in the Torah refers to events as seen from the human perspective. For example, in reference to the passage which states that "God came down to Mt. Sinai" - a passage which is usually interpreted as being meant allegorically - Maharal gives the following interpretation: Since the Jewish people perceived God as having 'come down' to Mt. Sinai, then even though it is impossible for God to be limited, and to move in this way, nevertheless since the Jewish people perceived events in this way, the Torah can record it as a factual occurence.
[8]Of course the Bible presents these few generations as spanning a thousand years. However, the stated extreme longevity of these individuals is so unusual even in the Bible, that it may well be that the ages are meant in an allegorical manner. We can however maintain the literal sense of the stated interval as being a span of nine generations. However, even if it is meant as being over a thousand years, one can assume that the first thousand or two years of Man would see him inhabiting a relatively small area - an area which is small enough for it to have been devastated by a catastrophic flood.
[9] R. Yokhanan: Nida 61a.
[10] The reasoning is not given, but is obvious: if Og was born before the flood, then his parents lived prior to the flood. As stated elsewhere, Og had a brother Sikhon. If Og's parents did not survive the flood, then in order for Og to have had a brother Sikhon, the brother must have been born before the flood. Since Sikhon is mentioned after the flood, Sikhon must have survived the flood.
Of course Sikhon could have been born after the flood, but only if his parents survived the flood . Thus, either Sikhon survived the flood, or both his parents did. It is simpler to assume however that it was the younger warrior-king Sikhon who survived than that his parents did.
[11]If there wqere individuals or races who survived the flood, there need be no contradiction between the fact of the flood and the results of modern investigation in the fields of evolutionary population demographics
[12]Zevakhim 113a. See also Gen.R. 33:9.
[13]Deuteronomy Rabbah [Dvarim Rabbah, parshat 'Ekev'] 3:8.
[14]Pirkei DeRabi Eliezer 33. See also Ramban on Gen. 8:11.
[15] Sanh. 89a.
[16] Guide II:29
[17] God could also command Moses to write it as he wishes, and then give the final product Divine sanction.
[18] Tiferet yisrael 32
[19] This conclusion may perhaps be more acceptable in conjunction with the indications that according to Jewish tradition the Flood did not wipe out all Mankind outside the Ark
[20] R. Yokhanan and Resh Lakish , Gittin 60a.
[21] R. Yokhanan [see Rashi].
[22] Resh Lakish.
[23] The revelation at Sinai took place a year after the exodus. The Torah however contains descriptions of events which occurred not only during that first year, but also events which occurred during the next thirty-nine years. If the Torah was known to Moses and to the Jewish People, then they would know their own future. Certainly they would not make all the mistakes attributed to them if they knew beforehand that they would. This type of interaction between present and future leads to inurmountable causality paradoxes. Thus it is unlikely that even Moses knew the entire contents of the Torah at Sinai[unless he was told it at Sinai and forgot it until later, and held the Torah scroll in secret until Yehoshua [Joshua] revealed it to the Jewish People immediately after his death].
In addition, the final passages about Moses's death were usually traditionally attributed to Yehoshua.
What is therefore most likely is that the Torah was revealed part by part over the entire soujourn in the desert.
[24] Or, they were written by Moses in a mystical jumbled form, and arranged into words by Yehoshua [the Gra(see author of "Anaf Yosef); also, "Metzaref La'khokhma" of R. Yosef Shlomo Ha'rofe from Candia].
[25] Introduction to his commentary on the Torah [very beginning].
[26] since the Torah preceeded the creation.
[27] In addition, according to tradition [ SOURCE?] it is theoretically possible to deduce all the laws of the Torah. The Torah is the blueprint of creation - and thus the blueprint of the physical universe including Man. By analyzing the created Works of God, it is possible to derive the blueprint - the Torah. According to a tradition [SOURCE?], Abraham was able to do this once he recognized that the universe was the carefully designed creation of an omnipotent and benevolent Being. Thus, after doing so, he could record it and pass it on to his descendants - eventually reaching Moses.
[28] See however previous note.
[29] God could also command Moses to write it as he wishes, and then give the final product Divine sanction.
[30] As we stated above, according to Ramban, Moses wrote the Torah anonymously because the words he wrote in the Torah had already been written before, and therefore Moses was "like a scribe who copies from an old book".
[The Torah preceeded the universe and therefore contained the words of people not yet in existence. The words of this Torah were words to be written later by various prophets - in accordance with the Divine Plan inherent in the Torah. (See below, section "A Possible Approach to a Solution").]
[31] Tiferet yisrael 32
[32] This conclusion may perhaps be more acceptable in conjunction with the indications that according to Jewish tradition the Flood did not wipe out all Mankind outside the Ark
[33] Tiferet yisrael 32
[34] For a discussion of the issue of Divine Omniscience and free will, see Rabinowitz " " B'Ohr HaTorah #7
[35] One needn't agree with rambam's thesis here for the following reason: According to the bible, sacrifice began with Adam's children Kayin and Hevel, and was a tradition continued by Noah, and then by Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Thus, sacrifice began as worship of God, and only later did it degenerate - among most of humanity - into idolatry. Thus, there was a continuous line of descent and tradition of the correct worship of God via sacrifice stretching from its origins with the children of Adam until the Torah was given.
[36] "The Torah speaks in the language of man" see Kapakh for refs.
[37] Since they are not moral beings, they are not responsible for their actions, and cannot be punished by God. Therefore, they were not destroyed by the flood, and they have to be defeated in battle by the Jewish people: in the desert, by Shaul, and in the time of Mordecai and Esther -- and Germany?
[38] Guide III:50.
[39] Roman Catholics are permitted to believe in the theory of evolution, but as at best an incomplete theory, since it cannot - or does not 'wish' to - account for the origin of the soul in man. In addition, it is a dogma of the Roman Catholic church that only one man was created - in order to provide support for their doctrine of the "Fall of Man" which had to encompass all mankind. Thus, they believe in evolution, but only as a partially correct incomplete theory. See the "monogenist theory of human evolution" in the encyclical of Pius XII "Humani Generis":1950.
[40] There does not seem to be any direct archaeological evidence for the occurrence of a worlwide flood as described in Genesis, at the date indicated there. Indeed, in certain areas there seem to be traces of continuous habitation throughout the past ten thousand years. However, the flood should have caused at the very least a noticeable gap in those cultures. It would have taken Noah's descendants some time to increase, repopulate the area, excavate the remains of the previous civilization, and continue the previous culture - if it is at all likely that they would do so instead of building thir own culture.
However, even if the possible evidence for a continuous culture is accepted, there is no logical difficulty in accepting the literal truth of the flood account in Genesis.
Noone doubts that it is possible for a God such as the God of the Bible to exist. When atheist deny the existence of God, they do not deny the possibility a priori that a God can exist. Rather, it is because they are aware of the possibility that there exists a God that they have searched about to determine if in fact a God does exist. Atheists believe - based on the evidense of their senses and rational thought etc. - that in fact no God exists.
However, in this we are assuming the existence of a God, creator of the universe, creator of space-time-matter-energy and the 'laws of nature' and so on, and therefore transcending the limitations these place on created beings. Therefore, we will allow that God the creator could do all that the Divine Will wishes to do.
It would be silly to say that God the creator of the entire universe could not have the power to flood the Earth, or to bring together all the species of living beings - beings which God created - into the ark, and to make them fit in and so on. Similarly, if God can create the universe.
Similarly, when creating a universe, if it is so wished, God can create it as an instant universe.
[41] "Da'at Tevunot" pXXXXXX see also "The Way of God" ed. and trans. by A.Kaplan p.XX. See also R. Azriel of Gerona :Letter to Bourgos": and Ramban"Sha'ar Hagemul" kitvei II :p303-307. According to R. Azriel, Adam and Eve and their progeny were all purely spiritual beings.[Quoted in B. Safran's article in "Ramban..." Edited by I. Twersky.] Ramban seems to interpret the Garden of Eden account on both literal and allegorical levels.[see Safran].
[42] See section three of this chapter.
[43] The necessity of creating a mental design of the universe prior to its actual physical creation follows from the instant universe idea.
The Design of a Big-Bang-Emergent Moral Stage Universe: As a first step, it is necessary to design the desired moral stage. To this end, a model can be constructed mentally, in order to ensure the existence of all that is required by the moral being: sun, planet, vegetation, animals for work, milk , wool [ leather for tfilin etc.] etc.
If this is the first creation of such a being, there is no precedent for its creation, and for the creation of its environment. thus the model would be constructed piece by piece, and when it was seen that all was OK, the next element would be introduced. Then, after all the necessary elements were present, the resultant system could be organized into a self-running system via the introduction of a set of 'natural laws'. This then completes a mental blueprint for a moral stage universe.
In order to obtain a temporally, spatially, and aesthetically complete system consistent with these natural laws, the mental blueprint of the moral stage could then be extrapolated backwards using the "natural laws" to discover a big bang which would give rise to such a moral stage universe. This mentally-teleoderived big bang could then be mentally extrapolated[43] up to the point at which the first moral being emerged. This mental blueprint-picture of the moral stage could then serve as the blueprint for the creation of a complete big bang-emergent moral-stage universe.
We then interpret the first creation account as a description of the construction of this blueprint.
[44] Sha'ar daled, perek yod.
[45] Sha'ar daled, perek khof-khet.
[46] For a full explanation of these terms and of this interpretation of Genesis, see Rabinowitz: "And God said: 'Let there have been a Big Bang' ".
[47] It may of course be that the limping was also in the vision. However, a law was given forever to the descendants of Yakov not to eat the 'nasheh' sinew of an animal. If the limping was in a dream, then it is very odd that Yakov's descendants had to follow a precept based on a dream event. On the other hand, the reason for the precept itself is totally incomprehensible - it makes no more human-sense to keep it if the limp was real than if it was in the vision. . If the limping was not in a dream, then how did the dream of a struggle cause him to limp? Perhaps the fact that the limp disappeared when the sun shone on it is an indication that the limp may have been psychosomatic - caused by the mental anguish of the dream-struggle.
[48] In an ordinary dream , it is the subconscious which constructs the dream-scenarios, and the subconscious which reacts. In the case of a prophetic dream or vision, the dream/vision scenario is directly implanted by God, and it is the entire waking faculties of the subject which controls the reaction.
[49] There is an interesting parallel between the talking donkey of Bilam and the talking snake in Eden. They are the only cases in the Torah in which an animal speaks, and in both cases man was embarking on a venture which he knew via special Divine communication was displeasing to God. A further connection between the two cases is the theme of the snake - we are told by implication (see Numbers 24:1)that Bil'am used snakes to carry out his defiant actions[or that he was opposed by snakes?].
[50] There is a thematic connection then between the method used by God in the design of the universe[mental design], the creation of the universe[mental extrapolation up to the moral stage], and the events which allowed the emergence of the universe into actual existence[aquisition of the mental quality of free will, and a mental struggle over a moral issue, ].
[51] See for example the case of God's visit to Abraham and the mental linking of the message of the angels to Abraham with the response of Sarah .
For a treatment of the story of Noah and the flood as a vision, see XXXXXX.
[52] SOURCE
[53][See chapter 3X of Rabinowitz for a detailed investigation of this issue.]
[54] Free will of the meaningful type specified previously is not comprehensible within the bounds of physics and logic. It is truly a quality which seems to be purely mental, and which can be acquired only via a Divine act.
[55] Mankind could have been propagated from Noah and his wife alone. However, this would necessitate the practice of incest. Of course this was the case with Adam[and the intention of the daughters of Lot], but perhaps God wished that the new world be rebuilt without recourse to incestuous relationships.[Part of the reason for the destruction of the world by the flood was that the world had broken the bariers of sexual immorality.
Indeed, the prohibitions on incestuous relationships was given for the first time to the children of Noah [as part of the seven Noahide laws].
In order to build a world not on the basis of incest, there must be, besides Noah himself, two couples[two of his children and their spouses], or one couple plus a fertile wife for Noah. However since these family members are necessary for the plot to have meaning, one can expect that the remaining children and their spouses would survive as well.
[56] In the story of Nineveh and Jonah, there is also some mention of the inhabitants.
[57] Between 52 and 120 years.
[58] It has been suggested that [Leuchter] no mention is made of the contemporaries of Adam for the following reason: The Torah is meant for the human race as it existed after Sinai and until today. Therefore, those humans who died in the flood and left no descendants are irrelevant to the Biblical accounts.
An objection to this can be raised in that Kain[Cain] and Hevel[Abel] are mentioned in the Bible despite the fact that they had no descendants, since all Mankind is descended from Noah, and Noah is descended from Shet[Seth].
Two answers to this are that: 1) Noah's wives may have been descended from Kayin's line, and: 2) at the time of the existence of noakh's contemporaries, they were already doomed to extinction, whereas at the time of Kayin, he and his descendants were not to be killed for over one thousand years.
[59] The wives of Noah's sons must have had parents, brothers and sisters and so on.
[60] Of course the account could have been of a vision even if there had been a description of the reactions of Adam's contemporaries etc. However, .
[61]Insert note re: the floodists (in computer somewhere)
Physics, Visions, and Angels
Visions and Physical Transformations: Ramban vs Rambam (Nahmanides vs Maimonides)
Rambam stresses that:
“In some cases the account begins by stating that the prophet saw an angel; in others the account apparently introduces a human being, who ultimately is shown to be an angel; but it makes no difference, for even if the fact that an angel has been heard is mentioned only at the end, you may rest satisfied that the whole account from the beginning describes a prophetic vision. In such visions, a prophet either sees God who speaks to him, as will be explained by us, or he sees an angel who speaks to him, or he hears someone speaking to him without seeing the speaker, or he sees a man who speaks to him, and learns afterwards that the speaker was an angel.”
Rambam then mentions the cases of Abraham’s three visitors, Jacob’s wrestling with the ‘man’, and Bilaam’s encounter, and some others. He then states:
“The instances quoted may serve as an illustration of those passages which I do not mention.”
……………….
FROM FIle”: “Sent to D Gilad”
Physics, Visions, and Angels
When we see an entity, it is because photons (light) are emitted by that entity, or bounce off the entity - actually, are absorbed and then emitted by the entity - and then these photons enter our eye, and stimulate an electrical signal to our brain. An entity which is not physical to the extent that it can bounce or emit photons cannot be physically seen.
Of course it may be possible for an image to form in our brains which appears to us as though it is in the external world. For example when we sleep, or if our brains are stimulated by electrodes. If the mind is a non-physical entity affiliated with the brain, images can form in it perhaps without any physical stimulus.
An angel is, according to one interpretation, a messenger of God; according to Rambam’s interpretation it is not necessarily a being, but can be e.g. a law of nature created by GOd, which is now carrying out God’s purpose; an angel can also be a non-physical being, and therefore presumably if an angel existed, it would not exist in a physical sense. According to these interpretations, it would not have physical meaning to state that the angel walked somewhere or picked up something, or said something, since all these imply a physical structure existing in spacetime. Similarly, the angel if it were not physical - could not be said to emit or bounce off photons, and therefore it could not be said with physical meaning that the angel could be ‘seen’. And, since it cannot be seen or measured or felt by any physical means, it would perhaps be meaningless to say that the angel was there - in any physical sense of ‘being’ - but simply could not be seen.
Therefore if someone were to ‘see’ an angel, it would presumably be due to an image which was formed directly in their minds by some spiritual agency, rather than by physical means. This would mean that the person would see the angel, but this vision of the angel would be an internal reality, and would not correspond to a physical entity outside the viewer - there would not be an angel ‘out there’.
Of course it would be possible for God to create a physical being and send it to someone, who would then see it. This however would be a pohysical being and not an angel, if an angel is defined to be a spiritual being. If however ‘angel ‘ is means simply ‘messenger of God’, then it would be possible to see physical angels of course.
Visions and Physical Transformations
According to Ramban, all those who are recorded in the Torah as having seen angels, actually beheld these angels in a dream or a vision, even where it is not stated that this is the case. However, he disagreed with Rambam’s more radical statements on this issue.
The entire episode of the speaking of Balaam’s donkey was a vision according to Rambam. Even when the Torah records long dialogues, and seemingly physical events occur, when they are within the context of a prophetic encounter they refer to mental events in the mind of the prophet.
Rambam also states that Ya’akov[Jacob]’s wrestling with the mysterious stranger - the angel - occurred in a prophetic vision or dream. This despite the fact that Ya’akov had a limp after the angel damaged his ‘nasheh’ sinew during the struggle. Thus a Biblical narrative in which an event occurs, and then seems to have an effect later, may nevertheless refer to a mental event.
Rambam also states that even angels seen by two people at the same time - as with Manoakh and his wife, parents of Samson - were seen in a dream/vision by both simultaneously.
Rambam essentially makes two crucial points. One, that regarding any Biblically recorded prophetic encounter with God or angels other than by Moses, the encounter took place during a dream or vision, regardless of whether or not it is specifically stated that it took place in a dream or vision, and regardless of what physical activity is reported as part of the encounter.
Secondly, that if in any section of the Torah there is a mention of an interaction of man - other than Moses - with God or with an angel, then the entire episode occured in a vision.
APPENDIX: RAMBAN’S OBJECTIONS
The Position of Ramban (Nakhmanides)
Ramban objected to the thesis of Rambam that all the events surrounding the prophecy occured in a dream or vision, and attempted to bring proofs that it was not so.
The sages in the Talmud had drawn attention to the fact that the Torah distinguishes between the level of prophecy of Moshe and that of all other prophets. They said that while all other prophets saw as ‘through a glass darkly’, Moshe Rabbenu saw clearly.
Rambam stated that the essential difference between the prophecies of Moshe and other prophets was that all of their prophecies, including all the related actions, occured in a vision rather than in actual external physical reality, whereas Ramban stated that this was not so, and that the difference was simply as stated by the Sages - a difference involving clarity. According to Ramban, the levels of prophecy are indicated by the wording relating the encounter, for example the ‘seeing of God’ being of a higher level than the ‘seeing of an angel’.
Ramban poses several questions which he hopes will convince the reader that indeed the events occured in external reality rather than in a vision. We present them below along with possible answers to Ramban’s points.
Genesis 18, where the story of Abraham’s three angelic visitors is told, begins as follows: “And God appeared to him in the plains of Mamre as he sat in the doorway of the tent. And he raised his eyes and saw, and lo three men..”. Rambam states that the words “And God appeared to him..” are a general introduction to the vision of the three “men” which followed.
Ramban asks: if it was a vision of angels rather than of God, why does the Torah say “God appeared to him”. Ramban therefore infers that there was a vision of God, about which we are told nothing other than that it occured, and that following this, three angels in the guise of men appeared to him in external reality. However, Rambam clearly states that the Torah uses the phraseology “God appeared” to describe a certain type of vision - even a vision in which God did not appear. Instead one could say that “God appeared to him” means that God caused this vision of “men” - who were angels - to arise in Abraham’s mind.
Furthermore, in the case of Jacob’s struggle with the angel Ramban would presumeably agree that it was not God who wrestled with Jacob, even though Jacob states afterwards “...for I have seen God face to face..”.
The Irrelevant Details Indicate that it was not a Vision
Ramban also objects that the events related in the story - the eating, and the baking of cakes, and so on - are superfluous if it was a vision, since the angels were there to merely give a message, and the vision could have been given simply. If on the other hand the events occured as related in external reality, then they describe the normal course of events which would occur upon the arrival of three visitors. Therefore the fact that these events not directly related to the message are included in the story indicate that it was not a vision, which would have included only the message.
We answer as follows: Indeed the message could have been given in a short vision including only the message and no three travelling men who must be offered food and so on. This in fact would seemingly have been preferable also to the complicated business of sending three angels in the guise of men, and having Abraham put in the position of having to offer them hospitality, feeding them and so on.
The issue then is why the long complicated method was preferred rather than a short giving of the messeage - why the giving of the message is long and full of seemingly irrelevant matters rather than a short and to the point vision. Clearly then these events - whether they occured in a vision or in external reality - must have had a purpose.
The passage stresses that it was during the strongest heat of the day, and it is known that Abraham was subjected to a number of tests by God, so perhaps the events were meant to test Abraham’s hospitality during his recuperation from the circumcision, and in the heat of the Middle Eastern day. Whatever the reason, the events must have had a purpose, and are not irrelevant. Rather, there was a reason that God wished Abraham to be confronted with that situation then, at the time of the giving of the message. And, the simplest manner of arranging a situation which is designed to test certain responses is to stage it as a vision, so that no extraneous matters interfere.
The Actions of Sarah
Ramban also objects that if all was a vision, then the actions which the Torah ascribes to Sarah - preparing cakes and laughing at the prediction of the angels that she would bear a son - were actually not her actions, but occured instead in Abraham’s vision.
However, we can perhaps answer as follows: Some visions are joint ones - as that of Manoakh and his wife, who both saw the same angel. And in the case before us, there are various indications that this was a joint vision of Abraham and Sarah.
Sarah heard the words the angels spoke to Abraham outside even while she was in the tent; she laughed inside herself upon hearing the message of Isaac’s impending birth, and this was immediately known to Abraham, for God asks him why she laughed; and Sarah immediately responded to this message although it was from God to Abraham. These indicate that for at least some part, the vision was a joint one, and therefore Sarah did indeed commit the actions ascribed to her - to the same extent as Abraham commited the actions ascribed to him.
Physical Changes During or Following the Prophetic Encounter
Ramban also states that the limping of Jacob would be inexplicable if the injury was received in a vision.
However, it may of course be that the limping was also in the vision. In any case, a law was given forever to the descendants of Yakov not to eat the ‘nasheh’ sinew of an animal. If the limping was in a dream, then it is very odd that Yakov’s descendants had to follow a precept based on a dream event.
On the other hand, the reason for the precept itself is totally incomprehensible - it makes no more human-sense to keep it if the limp was real than if it was in the vision. . If the limping was not in a dream, then how did the dream of a struggle cause him to limp?
Perhaps the statement in the passage that the limp disappeared when the sun shone can be interpreted as an indication that the limp may have been caused by the mental anguish of the dream-struggle [See also Abarbanel].
Another example of a physical change which seemingly occurred during a dream, or due to events in a dream, relates to King Solomon’s dream wherein he requests and is granted wisdom - and awakes to find himself indeed much wiser.
Essentially however, it is clear that in both these cases the physical effect is due to something other than actual physical interaction. It would not be explicable for a touch on Jacob’s thigh to make him limp, especially considering that Jacob was fit enough to wrestle all night long. Similarly, Solomon’s new wisdom was clearly not an ordinary natural physical change.
Therefore it is no more surprising that the physical changes to Jacob and Solomon should occur as the result of a dream or vision than if they were to occur during an actual physical encounter.
Jacob’s Fear and Surprise Upon Awakening
“...for I have seen God face to face and my life is preserved.” Jacob’s mention that he was yet alive after his experience imply surprise or thankfulness, as though he had reason to believe that he should have died. Ramban saw this as an indication that the struggle occured in external reality, since a vision of God in any form would not carry any danger - after all his father and grandfather had had such visions and lived. This surprise would therefore seemingly be appropriate only if the event occured in external reality, where a real physical danger could have arisen. If on the other hand it were a vision, then Jacob would not have reason to believe he could have died.
However, we can answer as follows: The fact that an angel would physically harm him is in itself unusual. It is also clear that actually Jacob was the victor in the encounter - which implies that had he lost, he might have been killed. Indeed, when Jacob realizes that it was an angel he fought with rather than a human, and that this angel actually caused him physical damage, he realized that had he not succeeded, the angel might well have killed him.
The Incident in Sodom
Ramban also objects that if the visit of the three angels to Abraham was all a vision, then it would follow that the entire account of what occurred in Sodom concerning Lot, his family, and the inhabitants of Sodom, was all a vision - including even the destruction of the city itself. Ramban then says that Rambam himself believed that the events occurred, but that the conversations all took place in a vision.
It is not so much relevant here to discuss whether or not this latter statement is a correct interpretation of Rambam’s position on the matter. We can however state that the fact that the ‘vision’ approach implies that the entire Sodom account occurred in a vision is not in itself a disproof of the validity of the approach. Nevertheless, there is no need to go this far. We can instead say that the Lot story was indeed a vision, but that the city of Sodom was destroyed, and Lot and his daughters saved. The passages from the end of God’s dialogue with Abraham - where Abraham is pleading for the rescuing of Sodom - until the end of the story, read [in rough translation and in condensed form]:
“And Abraham said ‘Perhaps ten righteous men will be found [In Sodom]. And God said ‘[If there are ten] I will not destroy it, for their sake’. And the Lord went when He finished speaking to Abraham, and Abraham returned to his place. And the two angels came to Sodom..Lot...the people of Sodom surrounded the house....and the angels took Lot and his wife and two daughters out of the city....And God poured brimstone and fire...destroyed the cities... Lot’s wife.. a pillar of salt. And Abraham arose in the morning at the place where he stood with the face of God. And he looked out at Sodom and Gommorrah and ...the smoke was rising like from a furnace. And as the Lord destroyed [Sodom..] He remembered Abraham....and God sent Lot from out of the midst of the destruction.....and his two daughters with him..”
According to the Abarbanel, the statement “And Abraham arose in the morning at the place where he stood in the presence of God” indicates the end of the prophetic encounter begun with “And God appeared to Abraham in the plains of Mamre”. That is, that the entire Sodom account until here was a vision.
Indeed, the passages can perhaps be considered as being redundant if the events did not occur in a vision, since the destruction of the cities and the saving of Lot and his family are described twice, as can be seen from the passages quoted above. If however Abraham experienced a vision from the appearance of the three angels until the turning of Lot’s wife to salt, perhaps a vision shared by Lot and his family or others as well, then the passages are not redundant.
The vision then serves as a moral challenge, to test the individuals involved, and then based on their actions and words, their fates are decided. For example, as with Abraham, Lot proved exceptionally hospitable, even risking his life. Lot’s wife proved unable to follow the command of the angels. The daughters were seemingly willing to be sacrificed to save the angels, and the sons-in-law scoffed at the whole thing. So, Lot and his daughters proved themselves worthy of living. And then, we are indeed told at the end of this moral-test vision, after the description of these moral tests, and after the destruction of Sodom, and the escape of Lot, his wife, and his daughters, after the turning of the wife to a pillar of salt, that:
“as the Lord destroyed [Sodom..] He remembered Abraham....and God sent Lot from out of the midst of the destruction.....and his two daughters with him..”
Visions and Moral Tests
The Appropriateness of the Vision State
The visions/dreams of a prophet can be interpreted as a means by which God can test the prophet’s moral strength - creating a complete mental scenario in the prophet’s mind, in order to test the response. The prophet at the time would not be in an ordinary sleep state. Instead he is as fully in control of his mental characteristics as he would be if he were wide awake. He can exert his will, and use his intelligence, exactly as he would were he awake. The response may be purely mental, but it is exactly that - Man’s deepest intention - which interests God. For God to test someone, there is no need to put the person into an actual physical situation. Instead, a complete scenario is constructed and inserted into the person’s mental awareness in such a way that it seems perfectly real, yet allows his psyche, intelligence, and will to operate as though he were awake.
In an ordinary dream , it is the subconscious which constructs the dream-scenarios, and the subconscious which reacts. In the case of a prophetic dream or vision, the dream/vision scenario is directly implanted by God, and it is the entire waking faculties of the subject which controls the reaction.
………………………….
Avi Rabinowitz (02) 813-677
According to Rambam, all the Divine communications received by the prophets of the Bible were received during a Divinely induced vision or dream - except for the case of Moses. Moses is the only prophet who could actually ‘speak directly’ to Gd.
Physics, Visions, and Angels
When we see an entity, it is because photons (light) are emitted by that entity, or bounce off the entity - actually, are absorbed and then emitted by the entity - and then these photons enter our eye, and stimulate an electrical signal to our brain. An entity which is not physical to the extent that it can bounce or emit photons cannot be physically seen.
Of course it may be possible for an image to form in our brains which appears to us as though it is in the external world. For example when we sleep, or if our brains are stimulated by electrodes. If the mind is a non-physical entity affiliated with the brain, images can form in it perhaps without any physical stimulus.
An angel is by definition a non-physical being, and therefore presumeably if an angel existed, it would not exist in a physical sense. It would not have physical meaning to state that the angel walked somewhere or picked up something, or said something, since all these imply a physical structure existing in spacetime. Similarly, the angel if it were not physical - could not be said to emit or bounce off photons, and therefore it could not be said with physical meaning that the angel could be ‘seen’. And, since it cannot be seen or measured or felt by any physical means, it would perhaps be meaningless to say that the angel was there - in any physical sense of ‘being’ - but simply could not be seen.
Therefore if someone were to ‘see’ an angel, it would presumeably be due to an image which was formed directly in their minds by some spiritual agency, rather than by physical means. This would mean that the person would see the angel, but this vision of the angel would be an internal reality, and would not correspond to a physical entity outside the viewer - there would not be an angel ‘out there’.
Of course it would be possible for God to create a physical being and send it to someone, who would then see it. This however would be a pohysical being and not an angel, if an angel is defined to be a spiritual being. If however ‘angel ‘ is means simply ‘messenger of God’, then it would be possible to see physical angels of course.
Visions and Physical Transformations
According to Ramban, all those who are recorded in the Torah as having seen angels, actually beheld these angels in a dream or a vision, even where it is not stated that this is the case. However, he disagreed with Rambam’s more radical statements on this issue.
Rambam wrote that all those who heard God or angels speaking to them, or ‘saw’ God or angels, were actually experiencing a Divinely induced vision or dream, in which they ‘heard voices’ or ‘saw angels'’, and that all the events related in that context occured in the dream or vision.
The entire episode of the speaking of Balaam’s donkey was a vision according to Rambam. Even when the Torah records long dialogues, and seemingly physical events occur, when they are within the context of a prophetic encounter they refer to mental events in the mind of the prophet.
Rambam also states that Ya’akov[Jacob]’s wrestling with the mysterious stranger - the angel - occurred in a prophetic vision or dream. This despite the fact that Ya’akov had a limp after the angel damaged his ‘nasheh’ sinew during the struggle. Thus a Biblical narrative in which an event occurs, and then seems to have an effect later, may nevertheless refer to a mental event.
Rambam also states that even angels seen by two people at the same time - as with Manoakh and his wife, parents of Samson - were seen in a dream/vision by both simultaneously.
Rambam essentially makes two crucial points. One, that regarding any Biblically recorded prophetic encounter with God or angels other than by Moses, the encounter took place during a dream or vision, regardless of whether or not it is specifically stated that it took place in a dream or vision, and regardless of what physical activity is reported as part of the encounter.
Secondly, that if in any section of the Torah there is a mention of an interaction of man - other than Moses - with God or with an angel, then the entire episode occured in a vision.
Rambam stresses that:
“In some cases the account begins by stating that the prophet saw an angel; in others the account apparently introduces a human being, who ultimately is shown to be an angel; but it makes no difference, for even if the fact that an angel has been heard is mentioned only at the end, you may rest satisfied that the whole account from the beginning describes a prophetic vision. In such visions, a prophet either sees God who speaks to him, as will be explained by us, or he sees an angel who speaks to him, or he hears someone speaking to him without seeing the speaker, or he sees a man who speaks to him, and learns afterwards that the speaker was an angel.”
Rambam then mentions the cases of Abraham’s three visitors, Jacob’s wrestling with the ‘man’, and Bilaam’s encounter, and some others. He then states:
“The instances quoted may serve as an illustration of those passages which I do not mention.”
We will indeed adapt his idea to examples which he did not mention. We cannot know whether he would have agreed with our position or not, but we feel that our examples will nevertheless be within the guidelines he set.
The Position of Ramban (Nakhmanides)
Ramban objected to the thesis of Rambam that all the events surrounding the prophecy occured in a dream or vision, and attempted to bring proofs that it was not so.
The sages had drawn attention to the fact that the Torah distinguishes between the level of prophecy of Moshe and that of all other prophets. They said that while all other prophets saw as ‘through a glass darkly’, Moshe Rabbenu saw clearly.
Rambam stated that the essential difference between the prophecies of Moshe and other prophets was that they all of their prophecies, including all the related actions, occured in a vision rather than in actual external physical reality, whereas Ramban stated that this was not so, and that the difference was simply as stated by the Sages - a difference involving clarity. According to Ramban, the levels of prophecy are indicated by the wording relating the encounter, for example the ‘seeing of God’ being of a higher level than the ‘seeing of an angel’.
Ramban poses several questions which he hopes will convince the reader that indeed the events occured in external reality rather than in a vision. We present them below along with possible answers to Ramban’s points.
Genesis 18, where the story of Abraham’s three angelic visitors is told, begins as follows: “And God appeared to him in the plains of Mamre as he sat in the doorway of the tent. And he raised his eyes and saw, and lo three men..”. Rambam states that the words “And God appeared to him..” are a general introduction to the vision of the three “men” which followed.
Ramban asks: if it was a vision of angels rather than of God, why does the Torah say “God appeared to him”. Ramban therefore infers that there was a vision of God, about which we are told nothing other than that it occured, and that following this, three angels in the guise of men appeared to him in external reality. However, Rambam clearly states that the Torah uses the phraseology “God appeared” to describe a certain type of vision - even a vision in which God did not appear. Instead one could say that “God appeared to him” means that God caused this vision of “men” - who were angels - to arise in Abraham’s mind.
Furthermore, in the case of Jacob’s struggle with the angel Ramban would presumeably agree that it was not God who wrestled with Jacob, even though Jacob states afterwards “...for I have seen God face to face..”.
The Irrelevant Details Indicate that it was not a Vision
Ramban also objects that the events related in the story - the eating, and the baking of cakes, and so on - are superfluous if it was a vision, since the angels were there to merely give a message, and the vision could have been given simply. If on the other hand the events occured as related in external reality, then they describe the normal course of events which would occur upon the arrival of three visitors. Therefore the fact that these events not directly related to the message are included in the story indicate that it was not a vision, which would have included only the message.
We answer as follows: Indeed the message could have been given in a short vision including only the message and no three travelling men who must be offered food and so on. This in fact would seemingly have been preferable also to the complicated business of sending three angels in the guise of men, and having Abraham put in the position of having to offer them hospitality, feeding them and so on.
The issue then is why the long complicated method was preferred rather than a short giving of the messeage - why the giving of the message is long and full of seemingly irrelevant matters rather than a short and to the point vision. Clearly then these events - whether they occured in a vision or in external reality - must have had a purpose. The passage stresses that it was during the strongest heat of the day, and it is known that Abraham was subjected to a number of tests by God, so perhaps the events were meant to test Abraham’s hospitality during his recuperation from the circumcision, and in the heat of the Middle Eastern day. Whatever the reason, the events must have had a purpose, and are not irrelevant. Rather, there was a reason that God wished Abraham to be confronted with that situation then, at the time of the giving of the message. And, the simplest manner of arranging a situation which is designed to test certain responses is to stage it as a vision, so that no extraneous matters interfere.
The Actions of Sarah
Ramban also objects that if all was a vision, then the actions which the Torah ascribes to Sarah - preparing cakes and laughing at the prediction of the angels that she would bear a son - were actually not her actions, but occured instead in Abraham’s vision.
However, we can perhaps answer as follows: Some visions are joint ones - as that of Manoakh and his wife, who both saw the same angel. And in the case before us, there are various indications that this was a joint vision of Abraham and Sarah.
Sarah heard the words the angels spoke to Abraham outside even while she was in the tent; she laughed inside herself upon hearing the message of Isaac’s impending birth, and this was immediately known to Abraham, for God asks him why she laughed; and Sarah immediately responded to this message although it was from God to Abraham. These indicate that for at least some part, the vision was a joint one, and therefore Sarah did indeed commit the actions ascribed to her - to the same extent as Abraham commited the actions ascribed to him.
Physical Changes During or Following the Prophetic Encounter
Ramban also states that the limping of Jacob would be inexplicable if the injury was received in a vision.
However, it may of course be that the limping was also in the vision. In any case, a law was given forever to the descendants of Yakov not to eat the ‘nasheh’ sinew of an animal.
If the limping was in a dream, then it is very odd that Yakov’s descendants had to follow a precept based on a dream event. On the other hand, the reason for the precept itself is totally
incomprehensible - i
t
makes no more human-sense to keep it if the limp was real than if it was in the vision. . If the limping was not in a dream, then how did the
dream of a struggle
cause him
to limp?
Perhaps
the fact that the limp disappeared when the sun shone on it is an indication that the limp may have been caused by the mental anguish of the dream-struggle [See also Abarbanel].
Another example of a physical change which seem
ingly ocurred during a dream, or due to events in a dream, relates to King Solomon’s dream wherein he requests and is granted wisdom - and awakes to find himself indeed much wiser.
E
ssentially however, it is clear that in both these cases the physical effect is due to something other than actual physical interaction.
It would not be explicable for a touch on Jacob’s t
high to make him limp, especially considering that Jacob was fit enough to wrestle all night long. Similarly, Solomon’s new wisdom was clearly not an ordinary natural physical change.
Therefore it is no more surprising that the physical changes to Jacob and Solomon should occur as the result of a dream or vision than if they were to occur during an actual physical encounter.
Jacob’s Fear and Surprise Upon Awakening
“...for I have seen God face to face and my life is preserved.” Jacob’s mention that he was yet alive after his experience imply surprise or thankfulness, as though he had reason to believe that he should have died. Ramban saw this as an indication that the struggle occured in external reality, since a vision of God in any form would not carry any danger - after all his father and grandfather had had such visions and lived. This surprise would therefore seemingly be appropriate only if the event occured in external reality, where a real physical danger could have arisen. If on the other hand it were a vision, then Jacob would not have reason to believe he could have died.
However, we can answer as follows: The fact that an angel would physically harm him is in itself unusual. It is also clear that actually Jacob was the victor in the encounter - which implies that had he lost, he might have been killed. Indeed, when Jacob realizes that it was an angel he fought with rather than a human, and that this angel actually caused him physical damage, he realized that had he not succeeded, the angel might well have killed him.
The Incident in Sodom
Ramban also objects that if the visit of the three angels to Abraham was all a vision, then it would follow that the entire account of what occured in Sodomconcerning Lot, his family, and the inhabitants of Sodom, was all a vision - including even the destruction of the city itself. Ramban then says that Rambam himself believed that the events occured, but that the converstations all took place in a vision.
It is not so much relevany here to discuss whether or not this latter statement is a correct interpretation of Rambam’s position on the matter. We can however state that the fact that the ‘vision’ approach implies that the entire Sodom account occured in a vision is not in itself a disproof of the validity of the approach. Nevertheless, there is no need to go this far. We can instead say that the Lot story was indeed a vision, but that the city of Sodom was destroyed, and Lot and his daughters saved. The passages from the end of God’s dialogue with Abraham - where Abraham is pleading for the rescuing of Sodom - until the end of the story, read [in rough translation and in condensed form]:
“And Abraham said ‘Perhaps ten righteous men will be found [In Sodom]. And God said ‘[If there are ten] I will not destroy it, for their sake’. And the Lord went when He finished speaking to Abraham, and Abraham returned to his place. And the two angels came to Sodom..Lot...the people of Sodom surrounded the house....and the angels took Lot and his wife and two daughters out of the city....And God poured brimstone and fire...destroyed the cities... Lot’s wife.. a pillar of salt. And Abraham arose in the morning at the place where he stood with the face of God. And he looked out at Sodom and Gommorrah and ...the smoke was rising like from a furnace. And as the Lord destroyed [Sodom..] He remembered Abraham....and God sent Lot from out of the midst of the destruction.....and his two daughters with him..”
According to the Abarbanel, the statement “And Abraham arose in the morning at the place where he stood with the face of God” indicates the end of the prophetic encounter begun with “And God appeared to Abraham in the plains of Mamre”. That is, that the entire Sodom account until here was a vision.
Indeed, the passages can perhaps be considered as being redundant if the events did not occur in a vision, since the destruction of the cities and the saving of Lot and his family are described twice, as can be seen from the passages quoted above. If however Abraham experienced a vision from the appearance of the three angels until the turning of Lot’s wife to salt, perhaps a vision shared by Lot and his family or others as well, then the passages are not redundant.
The vision then serves as a moral challenge, to test the individuals involved, and then based on their actions and words, their fates are decided. For example, as with Abraham, Lot proved exceptionally hospitable, even risking his life. Lot’s wife proved unable to follow the command of the angels. The daughters were seemingly willing to be sacrificed to save the angels, and the sons-in-law scoffed at the whole thing. So, Lot and his daughters preved themselves worthy of living. And then, we are indeed told at the end of this moral-test vision, after the description of these moral tests, and after the destruction of Sodom, and the escape of Lot, his wife, and his daughters, after the turning of the wife to a pillar of salt, that:
“as the Lord destroyed [Sodom..] He remembered Abraham....and God sent Lot from out of the midst of the destruction.....and his two daughters with him..”
The Appropriateness of the Vision State
The visions/dreams of a prophet can be interpreted as a means by which God can test the prophet’s moral strength - creating a complete mental scenario in the prophet’s mind, in order to test the response. The prophet at the time would not be in an ordinary sleep state. Instead he is as fully in control of his mental characteristics as he would be if he were wide awake. He can exert his will, and use his intelligence, exactly as he would were he awake. The response may be purely mental, but it is exactly that - Man’s deepest intention - which interests Gd. For Gd to test someone, there is no need to put the person into an actual physical situation. Instead, a complete scenario is constructed and inserted into the person’s mental awareness in such a way that it seems perfectly real, yet allows his psyche, intelligence, and will to operate as though he were awake.
In an ordinary dream , it is the subconscious which constructs the dream-scenarios, and the subconscious which reacts. In the case of a prophetic dream or vision, the dream/vision scenario is directly implanted by Gd, and it is the entire waking faculties of the subject which controls the reaction. .
The only events which can be initiated by man are his free willed decisions. All else occurs in accordance with the laws of nature,
including its inherent random element [due to the quantum nature of events at their fundamental level].
Man is therefore responsible only for his freely willed decisions, nothing else. That is, only the mental events connected with the making of a free willed decision is of moral relevance.
To make a moral evaluation of a subject what one needs to know is various information regarding the mental state of the subject. If one knows all about human psychology and the effect
of the individual’s genes and environment, the particular abilities and limitations of the individual, whether the person weighed carefully all the factors known to him, whether he was
sincere, whether he felt that he was acting correctly or not, what his mental state is [and so on], then a moral evaluation can be ma
de if the
criteria for such an evaluation are available. The actual physical events and their consequences are irrelevant to the question of whether or not the subject acted rightly or wrongly.
When one man judges another however, since he cannot know the other’s thoughts, he can rely only on what is apparent to him - namely, the actions of the subject, and perhaps th
consequences of that action. However, one cannot always correctly judge
the subject’s intentions and emotions from his actions. And certainly one’s intentions are not always
directly deducible from the results of one’
s actions. Further
more, the
mental stru
gg
le accompanying a decision are not visible in the action which follows the decision. And, being human, one cannot be sure that one’s moral standards or criteria for judgement are valid.
Nevertheless, it is the mental arena which is of moral relevance, not the physical. For an understanding of the moral dimension, if the exact sequence of mental events are known, no additional information is added by an analysis of the consequent physical actions and their physical ramifications. Because of the limitations of human knowledge and understanding, judging according to results of actions rather than their intent is often unavoidable, but these are then not moral judgements but rather legal judgements - albeit morally sanctioned ones.
……….
According to Rambam, all the Divine communications received by the prophets of the Bible were received during a Divinely induced vision or dream - except for the case of Moses. Moses is the only prophet who could actually ‘speak directly’ to God.
Physics, Visions, and Angels
When we see an entity, it is because photons (light) are emitted by that entity, or bounce off the entity - actually, are absorbed and then emitted by the entity - and then these photons enter our eye, and stimulate an electrical signal to our brain. An entity which is not physical to the extent that it can bounce or emit photons cannot be physically seen.
Of course it may be possible for an image to form in our brains which appears to us as though it is in the external world. For example when we sleep, or if our brains are stimulated by electrodes. If the mind is a non-physical entity affiliated with the brain, images can form in it perhaps without any physical stimulus.
An angel is, according to one interpretation, a messenger of God; according to Rambam’s interpretation it is not necessarily a being, but can be e.g. a law of nature created by GOd, which is now carrying out God’s purpose; an angel can also be a non-physical being, and therefore presumably if an angel existed, it would not exist in a physical sense. According to these interpretations, it would not have physical meaning to state that the angel walked somewhere or picked up something, or said something, since all these imply a physical structure existing in spacetime. Similarly, the angel if it were not physical - could not be said to emit or bounce off photons, and therefore it could not be said with physical meaning that the angel could be ‘seen’. And, since it cannot be seen or measured or felt by any physical means, it would perhaps be meaningless to say that the angel was there - in any physical sense of ‘being’ - but simply could not be seen.
Therefore if someone were to ‘see’ an angel, it would presumably be due to an image which was formed directly in their minds by some spiritual agency, rather than by physical means. This would mean that the person would see the angel, but this vision of the angel would be an internal reality, and would not correspond to a physical entity outside the viewer - there would not be an angel ‘out there’.
Of course it would be possible for God to create a physical being and send it to someone, who would then see it. This however would be a pohysical being and not an angel, if an angel is defined to be a spiritual being. If however ‘angel ‘ is means simply ‘messenger of God’, then it would be possible to see physical angels of course.
Visions and Physical Transformations
According to Ramban, all those who are recorded in the Torah as having seen angels, actually beheld these angels in a dream or a vision, even where it is not stated that this is the case. However, he disagreed with Rambam’s more radical statements on this issue.
Rambam wrote that all those who heard God or angels speaking to them, or ‘saw’ God or angels, were actually experiencing a Divinely induced vision or dream, in which they ‘heard voices’ or ‘saw angels'’, and that all the events related in that context occured in the dream or vision.
The entire episode of the speaking of Balaam’s donkey was a vision according to Rambam. Even when the Torah records long dialogues, and seemingly physical events occur, when they are within the context of a prophetic encounter they refer to mental events in the mind of the prophet.
Rambam also states that Ya’akov[Jacob]’s wrestling with the mysterious stranger - the angel - occurred in a prophetic vision or dream. This despite the fact that Ya’akov had a limp after the angel damaged his ‘nasheh’ sinew during the struggle. Thus a Biblical narrative in which an event occurs, and then seems to have an effect later, may nevertheless refer to a mental event.
Rambam also states that even angels seen by two people at the same time - as with Manoakh and his wife, parents of Samson - were seen in a dream/vision by both simultaneously.
Rambam essentially makes two crucial points. One, that regarding any Biblically recorded prophetic encounter with God or angels other than by Moses, the encounter took place during a dream or vision, regardless of whether or not it is specifically stated that it took place in a dream or vision, and regardless of what physical activity is reported as part of the encounter.
Secondly, that if in any section of the Torah there is a mention of an interaction of man - other than Moses - with God or with an angel, then the entire episode occured in a vision.
Rambam stresses that:
“In some cases the account begins by stating that the prophet saw an angel; in others the account apparently introduces a human being, who ultimately is shown to be an angel; but it makes no difference, for even if the fact that an angel has been heard is mentioned only at the end, you may rest satisfied that the whole account from the beginning describes a prophetic vision. In such visions, a prophet either sees God who speaks to him, as will be explained by us, or he sees an angel who speaks to him, or he hears someone speaking to him without seeing the speaker, or he sees a man who speaks to him, and learns afterwards that the speaker was an angel.”
Rambam then mentions the cases of Abraham’s three visitors, Jacob’s wrestling with the ‘man’, and Bilaam’s encounter, and some others. He then states:
“The instances quoted may serve as an illustration of those passages which I do not mention.”
We will indeed adapt his idea to examples which he did not mention. We cannot know whether he would have agreed with our position or not, but we feel that our examples will nevertheless be within the guidelines he set.
APPENDIX: RAMBAN’S OBJECTIONS
The Position of Ramban (Nakhmanides)
Ramban objected to the thesis of Rambam that all the events surrounding the prophecy occured in a dream or vision, and attempted to bring proofs that it was not so.
The sages in the Talmud had drawn attention to the fact that the Torah distinguishes between the level of prophecy of Moshe and that of all other prophets. They said that while all other prophets saw as ‘through a glass darkly’, Moshe Rabbenu saw clearly.
Rambam stated that the essential difference between the prophecies of Moshe and other prophets was that all of their prophecies, including all the related actions, occured in a vision rather than in actual external physical reality, whereas Ramban stated that this was not so, and that the difference was simply as stated by the Sages - a difference involving clarity. According to Ramban, the levels of prophecy are indicated by the wording relating the encounter, for example the ‘seeing of God’ being of a higher level than the ‘seeing of an angel’.
Ramban poses several questions which he hopes will convince the reader that indeed the events occured in external reality rather than in a vision. We present them below along with possible answers to Ramban’s points.
Genesis 18, where the story of Abraham’s three angelic visitors is told, begins as follows: “And God appeared to him in the plains of Mamre as he sat in the doorway of the tent. And he raised his eyes and saw, and lo three men..”. Rambam states that the words “And God appeared to him..” are a general introduction to the vision of the three “men” which followed.
Ramban asks: if it was a vision of angels rather than of God, why does the Torah say “God appeared to him”. Ramban therefore infers that there was a vision of God, about which we are told nothing other than that it occured, and that following this, three angels in the guise of men appeared to him in external reality. However, Rambam clearly states that the Torah uses the phraseology “God appeared” to describe a certain type of vision - even a vision in which God did not appear. Instead one could say that “God appeared to him” means that God caused this vision of “men” - who were angels - to arise in Abraham’s mind.
Furthermore, in the case of Jacob’s struggle with the angel Ramban would presumeably agree that it was not God who wrestled with Jacob, even though Jacob states afterwards “...for I have seen God face to face..”.
The Irrelevant Details Indicate that it was not a Vision
Ramban also objects that the events related in the story - the eating, and the baking of cakes, and so on - are superfluous if it was a vision, since the angels were there to merely give a message, and the vision could have been given simply. If on the other hand the events occured as related in external reality, then they describe the normal course of events which would occur upon the arrival of three visitors. Therefore the fact that these events not directly related to the message are included in the story indicate that it was not a vision, which would have included only the message.
We answer as follows: Indeed the message could have been given in a short vision including only the message and no three travelling men who must be offered food and so on. This in fact would seemingly have been preferable also to the complicated business of sending three angels in the guise of men, and having Abraham put in the position of having to offer them hospitality, feeding them and so on.
The issue then is why the long complicated method was preferred rather than a short giving of the messeage - why the giving of the message is long and full of seemingly irrelevant matters rather than a short and to the point vision. Clearly then these events - whether they occured in a vision or in external reality - must have had a purpose.
The passage stresses that it was during the strongest heat of the day, and it is known that Abraham was subjected to a number of tests by God, so perhaps the events were meant to test Abraham’s hospitality during his recuperation from the circumcision, and in the heat of the Middle Eastern day. Whatever the reason, the events must have had a purpose, and are not irrelevant. Rather, there was a reason that God wished Abraham to be confronted with that situation then, at the time of the giving of the message. And, the simplest manner of arranging a situation which is designed to test certain responses is to stage it as a vision, so that no extraneous matters interfere.
The Actions of Sarah
Ramban also objects that if all was a vision, then the actions which the Torah ascribes to Sarah - preparing cakes and laughing at the prediction of the angels that she would bear a son - were actually not her actions, but occured instead in Abraham’s vision.
However, we can perhaps answer as follows: Some visions are joint ones - as that of Manoakh and his wife, who both saw the same angel. And in the case before us, there are various indications that this was a joint vision of Abraham and Sarah.
Sarah heard the words the angels spoke to Abraham outside even while she was in the tent; she laughed inside herself upon hearing the message of Isaac’s impending birth, and this was immediately known to Abraham, for God asks him why she laughed; and Sarah immediately responded to this message although it was from God to Abraham. These indicate that for at least some part, the vision was a joint one, and therefore Sarah did indeed commit the actions ascribed to her - to the same extent as Abraham commited the actions ascribed to him.
Physical Changes During or Following the Prophetic Encounter
Ramban also states that the limping of Jacob would be inexplicable if the injury was received in a vision.
However, it may of course be that the limping was also in the vision. In any case, a law was given forever to the descendants of Yakov not to eat the ‘nasheh’ sinew of an animal. If the limping was in a dream, then it is very odd that Yakov’s descendants had to follow a precept based on a dream event.
On the other hand, the reason for the precept itself is totally incomprehensible - it makes no more human-sense to keep it if the limp was real than if it was in the vision. . If the limping was not in a dream, then how did the dream of a struggle cause him to limp?
Perhaps the statement in the passage that the limp disappeared when the sun shone can be interpreted as an indication that the limp may have been caused by the mental anguish of the dream-struggle [See also Abarbanel].
Another example of a physical change which seemingly occurred during a dream, or due to events in a dream, relates to King Solomon’s dream wherein he requests and is granted wisdom - and awakes to find himself indeed much wiser.
Essentially however, it is clear that in both these cases the physical effect is due to something other than actual physical interaction. It would not be explicable for a touch on Jacob’s thigh to make him limp, especially considering that Jacob was fit enough to wrestle all night long. Similarly, Solomon’s new wisdom was clearly not an ordinary natural physical change.
Therefore it is no more surprising that the physical changes to Jacob and Solomon should occur as the result of a dream or vision than if they were to occur during an actual physical encounter.
Jacob’s Fear and Surprise Upon Awakening
“...for I have seen God face to face and my life is preserved.” Jacob’s mention that he was yet alive after his experience imply surprise or thankfulness, as though he had reason to believe that he should have died. Ramban saw this as an indication that the struggle occured in external reality, since a vision of God in any form would not carry any danger - after all his father and grandfather had had such visions and lived. This surprise would therefore seemingly be appropriate only if the event occured in external reality, where a real physical danger could have arisen. If on the other hand it were a vision, then Jacob would not have reason to believe he could have died.
However, we can answer as follows: The fact that an angel would physically harm him is in itself unusual. It is also clear that actually Jacob was the victor in the encounter - which implies that had he lost, he might have been killed. Indeed, when Jacob realizes that it was an angel he fought with rather than a human, and that this angel actually caused him physical damage, he realized that had he not succeeded, the angel might well have killed him.
The Incident in Sodom
Ramban also objects that if the visit of the three angels to Abraham was all a vision, then it would follow that the entire account of what occurred in Sodom concerning Lot, his family, and the inhabitants of Sodom, was all a vision - including even the destruction of the city itself. Ramban then says that Rambam himself believed that the events occurred, but that the conversations all took place in a vision.
It is not so much relevant here to discuss whether or not this latter statement is a correct interpretation of Rambam’s position on the matter. We can however state that the fact that the ‘vision’ approach implies that the entire Sodom account occurred in a vision is not in itself a disproof of the validity of the approach. Nevertheless, there is no need to go this far. We can instead say that the Lot story was indeed a vision, but that the city of Sodom was destroyed, and Lot and his daughters saved. The passages from the end of God’s dialogue with Abraham - where Abraham is pleading for the rescuing of Sodom - until the end of the story, read [in rough translation and in condensed form]:
“And Abraham said ‘Perhaps ten righteous men will be found [In Sodom]. And God said ‘[If there are ten] I will not destroy it, for their sake’. And the Lord went when He finished speaking to Abraham, and Abraham returned to his place. And the two angels came to Sodom..Lot...the people of Sodom surrounded the house....and the angels took Lot and his wife and two daughters out of the city....And God poured brimstone and fire...destroyed the cities... Lot’s wife.. a pillar of salt. And Abraham arose in the morning at the place where he stood with the face of God. And he looked out at Sodom and Gommorrah and ...the smoke was rising like from a furnace. And as the Lord destroyed [Sodom..] He remembered Abraham....and God sent Lot from out of the midst of the destruction.....and his two daughters with him..”
According to the Abarbanel, the statement “And Abraham arose in the morning at the place where he stood in the presence of God” indicates the end of the prophetic encounter begun with “And God appeared to Abraham in the plains of Mamre”. That is, that the entire Sodom account until here was a vision.
Indeed, the passages can perhaps be considered as being redundant if the events did not occur in a vision, since the destruction of the cities and the saving of Lot and his family are described twice, as can be seen from the passages quoted above. If however Abraham experienced a vision from the appearance of the three angels until the turning of Lot’s wife to salt, perhaps a vision shared by Lot and his family or others as well, then the passages are not redundant.
The vision then serves as a moral challenge, to test the individuals involved, and then based on their actions and words, their fates are decided. For example, as with Abraham, Lot proved exceptionally hospitable, even risking his life. Lot’s wife proved unable to follow the command of the angels. The daughters were seemingly willing to be sacrificed to save the angels, and the sons-in-law scoffed at the whole thing. So, Lot and his daughters proved themselves worthy of living. And then, we are indeed told at the end of this moral-test vision, after the description of these moral tests, and after the destruction of Sodom, and the escape of Lot, his wife, and his daughters, after the turning of the wife to a pillar of salt, that:
“as the Lord destroyed [Sodom..] He remembered Abraham....and God sent Lot from out of the midst of the destruction.....and his two daughters with him..”
Visions and Moral Tests
The Appropriateness of the Vision State
The visions/dreams of a prophet can be interpreted as a means by which God can test the prophet’s moral strength - creating a complete mental scenario in the prophet’s mind, in order to test the response. The prophet at the time would not be in an ordinary sleep state. Instead he is as fully in control of his mental characteristics as he would be if he were wide awake. He can exert his will, and use his intelligence, exactly as he would were he awake. The response may be purely mental, but it is exactly that - Man’s deepest intention - which interests God. For God to test someone, there is no need to put the person into an actual physical situation. Instead, a complete scenario is constructed and inserted into the person’s mental awareness in such a way that it seems perfectly real, yet allows his psyche, intelligence, and will to operate as though he were awake.
In an ordinary dream , it is the subconscious which constructs the dream-scenarios, and the subconscious which reacts. In the case of a prophetic dream or vision, the dream/vision scenario is directly implanted by God, and it is the entire waking faculties of the subject which controls the reaction.
.,………
According to Rambam, all the Divine communications received by the prophets of the Bible were received during a Divinely induced vision or dream - except for the case of Moses. Moses is the only prophet who could actually ‘speak directly’ to God.
Physics, Visions, and Angels
When we see an entity, it is because photons (light) are emitted by that entity, or bounce off the entity - actually, are absorbed and then emitted by the entity - and then these photons enter our eye, and stimulate an electrical signal to our brain. An entity which is not physical to the extent that it can bounce or emit photons cannot be physically seen.
Of course it may be possible for an image to form in our brains which appears to us as though it is in the external world. For example when we sleep, or if our brains are stimulated by electrodes. If the mind is a non-physical entity affiliated with the brain, images can form in it perhaps without any physical stimulus.
An angel is, according to one interpretation, a messenger of God; according to Rambam’s interpretation it is not necessarily a being, but can be e.g. a law of nature created by GOd, which is now carrying out God’s purpose; an angel can also be a non-physical being, and therefore presumably if an angel existed, it would not exist in a physical sense. According to these interpretations, it would not have physical meaning to state that the angel walked somewhere or picked up something, or said something, since all these imply a physical structure existing in spacetime. Similarly, the angel if it were not physical - could not be said to emit or bounce off photons, and therefore it could not be said with physical meaning that the angel could be ‘seen’. And, since it cannot be seen or measured or felt by any physical means, it would perhaps be meaningless to say that the angel was there - in any physical sense of ‘being’ - but simply could not be seen.
Therefore if someone were to ‘see’ an angel, it would presumably be due to an image which was formed directly in their minds by some spiritual agency, rather than by physical means. This would mean that the person would see the angel, but this vision of the angel would be an internal reality, and would not correspond to a physical entity outside the viewer - there would not be an angel ‘out there’.
Of course it would be possible for God to create a physical being and send it to someone, who would then see it. This however would be a pohysical being and not an angel, if an angel is defined to be a spiritual being. If however ‘angel ‘ is means simply ‘messenger of God’, then it would be possible to see physical angels of course.
Visions and Physical Transformations
According to Ramban, all those who are recorded in the Torah as having seen angels, actually beheld these angels in a dream or a vision, even where it is not stated that this is the case. However, he disagreed with Rambam’s more radical statements on this issue.
Rambam wrote that all those who heard God or angels speaking to them, or ‘saw’ God or angels, were actually experiencing a Divinely induced vision or dream, in which they ‘heard voices’ or ‘saw angels'’, and that all the events related in that context occured in the dream or vision.
The entire episode of the speaking of Balaam’s donkey was a vision according to Rambam. Even when the Torah records long dialogues, and seemingly physical events occur, when they are within the context of a prophetic encounter they refer to mental events in the mind of the prophet.
Rambam also states that Ya’akov[Jacob]’s wrestling with the mysterious stranger - the angel - occurred in a prophetic vision or dream. This despite the fact that Ya’akov had a limp after the angel damaged his ‘nasheh’ sinew during the struggle. Thus a Biblical narrative in which an event occurs, and then seems to have an effect later, may nevertheless refer to a mental event.
Rambam also states that even angels seen by two people at the same time - as with Manoakh and his wife, parents of Samson - were seen in a dream/vision by both simultaneously.
Rambam essentially makes two crucial points. One, that regarding any Biblically recorded prophetic encounter with God or angels other than by Moses, the encounter took place during a dream or vision, regardless of whether or not it is specifically stated that it took place in a dream or vision, and regardless of what physical activity is reported as part of the encounter.
Secondly, that if in any section of the Torah there is a mention of an interaction of man - other than Moses - with God or with an angel, then the entire episode occured in a vision.
Rambam stresses that:
“In some cases the account begins by stating that the prophet saw an angel; in others the account apparently introduces a human being, who ultimately is shown to be an angel; but it makes no difference, for even if the fact that an angel has been heard is mentioned only at the end, you may rest satisfied that the whole account from the beginning describes a prophetic vision. In such visions, a prophet either sees God who speaks to him, as will be explained by us, or he sees an angel who speaks to him, or he hears someone speaking to him without seeing the speaker, or he sees a man who speaks to him, and learns afterwards that the speaker was an angel.”
Rambam then mentions the cases of Abraham’s three visitors, Jacob’s wrestling with the ‘man’, and Bilaam’s encounter, and some others. He then states:
“The instances quoted may serve as an illustration of those passages which I do not mention.”
We will indeed adapt his idea to examples which he did not mention. We cannot know whether he would have agreed with our position or not, but we feel that our examples will nevertheless be within the guidelines he set.
APPENDIX: RAMBAN’S OBJECTIONS
The Position of Ramban (Nakhmanides)
Ramban objected to the thesis of Rambam that all the events surrounding the prophecy occured in a dream or vision, and attempted to bring proofs that it was not so.
The sages in the Talmud had drawn attention to the fact that the Torah distinguishes between the level of prophecy of Moshe and that of all other prophets. They said that while all other prophets saw as ‘through a glass darkly’, Moshe Rabbenu saw clearly.
Rambam stated that the essential difference between the prophecies of Moshe and other prophets was that all of their prophecies, including all the related actions, occured in a vision rather than in actual external physical reality, whereas Ramban stated that this was not so, and that the difference was simply as stated by the Sages - a difference involving clarity. According to Ramban, the levels of prophecy are indicated by the wording relating the encounter, for example the ‘seeing of God’ being of a higher level than the ‘seeing of an angel’.
Ramban poses several questions which he hopes will convince the reader that indeed the events occured in external reality rather than in a vision. We present them below along with possible answers to Ramban’s points.
Genesis 18, where the story of Abraham’s three angelic visitors is told, begins as follows: “And God appeared to him in the plains of Mamre as he sat in the doorway of the tent. And he raised his eyes and saw, and lo three men..”. Rambam states that the words “And God appeared to him..” are a general introduction to the vision of the three “men” which followed.
Ramban asks: if it was a vision of angels rather than of God, why does the Torah say “God appeared to him”. Ramban therefore infers that there was a vision of God, about which we are told nothing other than that it occured, and that following this, three angels in the guise of men appeared to him in external reality. However, Rambam clearly states that the Torah uses the phraseology “God appeared” to describe a certain type of vision - even a vision in which God did not appear. Instead one could say that “God appeared to him” means that God caused this vision of “men” - who were angels - to arise in Abraham’s mind.
Furthermore, in the case of Jacob’s struggle with the angel Ramban would presumeably agree that it was not God who wrestled with Jacob, even though Jacob states afterwards “...for I have seen God face to face..”.
The Irrelevant Details Indicate that it was not a Vision
Ramban also objects that the events related in the story - the eating, and the baking of cakes, and so on - are superfluous if it was a vision, since the angels were there to merely give a message, and the vision could have been given simply. If on the other hand the events occured as related in external reality, then they describe the normal course of events which would occur upon the arrival of three visitors. Therefore the fact that these events not directly related to the message are included in the story indicate that it was not a vision, which would have included only the message.
We answer as follows: Indeed the message could have been given in a short vision including only the message and no three travelling men who must be offered food and so on. This in fact would seemingly have been preferable also to the complicated business of sending three angels in the guise of men, and having Abraham put in the position of having to offer them hospitality, feeding them and so on.
The issue then is why the long complicated method was preferred rather than a short giving of the messeage - why the giving of the message is long and full of seemingly irrelevant matters rather than a short and to the point vision. Clearly then these events - whether they occured in a vision or in external reality - must have had a purpose.
The passage stresses that it was during the strongest heat of the day, and it is known that Abraham was subjected to a number of tests by God, so perhaps the events were meant to test Abraham’s hospitality during his recuperation from the circumcision, and in the heat of the Middle Eastern day. Whatever the reason, the events must have had a purpose, and are not irrelevant. Rather, there was a reason that God wished Abraham to be confronted with that situation then, at the time of the giving of the message. And, the simplest manner of arranging a situation which is designed to test certain responses is to stage it as a vision, so that no extraneous matters interfere.
The Actions of Sarah
Ramban also objects that if all was a vision, then the actions which the Torah ascribes to Sarah - preparing cakes and laughing at the prediction of the angels that she would bear a son - were actually not her actions, but occured instead in Abraham’s vision.
However, we can perhaps answer as follows: Some visions are joint ones - as that of Manoakh and his wife, who both saw the same angel. And in the case before us, there are various indications that this was a joint vision of Abraham and Sarah.
Sarah heard the words the angels spoke to Abraham outside even while she was in the tent; she laughed inside herself upon hearing the message of Isaac’s impending birth, and this was immediately known to Abraham, for God asks him why she laughed; and Sarah immediately responded to this message although it was from God to Abraham. These indicate that for at least some part, the vision was a joint one, and therefore Sarah did indeed commit the actions ascribed to her - to the same extent as Abraham commited the actions ascribed to him.
Physical Changes During or Following the Prophetic Encounter
Ramban also states that the limping of Jacob would be inexplicable if the injury was received in a vision.
However, it may of course be that the limping was also in the vision. In any case, a law was given forever to the descendants of Yakov not to eat the ‘nasheh’ sinew of an animal. If the limping was in a dream, then it is very odd that Yakov’s descendants had to follow a precept based on a dream event.
On the other hand, the reason for the precept itself is totally incomprehensible - it makes no more human-sense to keep it if the limp was real than if it was in the vision. . If the limping was not in a dream, then how did the dream of a struggle cause him to limp?
Perhaps the statement in the passage that the limp disappeared when the sun shone can be interpreted as an indication that the limp may have been caused by the mental anguish of the dream-struggle [See also Abarbanel].
Another example of a physical change which seemingly occurred during a dream, or due to events in a dream, relates to King Solomon’s dream wherein he requests and is granted wisdom - and awakes to find himself indeed much wiser.
Essentially however, it is clear that in both these cases the physical effect is due to something other than actual physical interaction. It would not be explicable for a touch on Jacob’s thigh to make him limp, especially considering that Jacob was fit enough to wrestle all night long. Similarly, Solomon’s new wisdom was clearly not an ordinary natural physical change.
Therefore it is no more surprising that the physical changes to Jacob and Solomon should occur as the result of a dream or vision than if they were to occur during an actual physical encounter.
Jacob’s Fear and Surprise Upon Awakening
“...for I have seen God face to face and my life is preserved.” Jacob’s mention that he was yet alive after his experience imply surprise or thankfulness, as though he had reason to believe that he should have died. Ramban saw this as an indication that the struggle occured in external reality, since a vision of God in any form would not carry any danger - after all his father and grandfather had had such visions and lived. This surprise would therefore seemingly be appropriate only if the event occured in external reality, where a real physical danger could have arisen. If on the other hand it were a vision, then Jacob would not have reason to believe he could have died.
However, we can answer as follows: The fact that an angel would physically harm him is in itself unusual. It is also clear that actually Jacob was the victor in the encounter - which implies that had he lost, he might have been killed. Indeed, when Jacob realizes that it was an angel he fought with rather than a human, and that this angel actually caused him physical damage, he realized that had he not succeeded, the angel might well have killed him.
The Incident in Sodom
Ramban also objects that if the visit of the three angels to Abraham was all a vision, then it would follow that the entire account of what occurred in Sodom concerning Lot, his family, and the inhabitants of Sodom, was all a vision - including even the destruction of the city itself. Ramban then says that Rambam himself believed that the events occurred, but that the conversations all took place in a vision.
It is not so much relevant here to discuss whether or not this latter statement is a correct interpretation of Rambam’s position on the matter. We can however state that the fact that the ‘vision’ approach implies that the entire Sodom account occurred in a vision is not in itself a disproof of the validity of the approach. Nevertheless, there is no need to go this far. We can instead say that the Lot story was indeed a vision, but that the city of Sodom was destroyed, and Lot and his daughters saved. The passages from the end of God’s dialogue with Abraham - where Abraham is pleading for the rescuing of Sodom - until the end of the story, read [in rough translation and in condensed form]:
“And Abraham said ‘Perhaps ten righteous men will be found [In Sodom]. And God said ‘[If there are ten] I will not destroy it, for their sake’. And the Lord went when He finished speaking to Abraham, and Abraham returned to his place. And the two angels came to Sodom..Lot...the people of Sodom surrounded the house....and the angels took Lot and his wife and two daughters out of the city....And God poured brimstone and fire...destroyed the cities... Lot’s wife.. a pillar of salt. And Abraham arose in the morning at the place where he stood with the face of God. And he looked out at Sodom and Gommorrah and ...the smoke was rising like from a furnace. And as the Lord destroyed [Sodom..] He remembered Abraham....and God sent Lot from out of the midst of the destruction.....and his two daughters with him..”
According to the Abarbanel, the statement “And Abraham arose in the morning at the place where he stood in the presence of God” indicates the end of the prophetic encounter begun with “And God appeared to Abraham in the plains of Mamre”. That is, that the entire Sodom account until here was a vision.
Indeed, the passages can perhaps be considered as being redundant if the events did not occur in a vision, since the destruction of the cities and the saving of Lot and his family are described twice, as can be seen from the passages quoted above. If however Abraham experienced a vision from the appearance of the three angels until the turning of Lot’s wife to salt, perhaps a vision shared by Lot and his family or others as well, then the passages are not redundant.
The vision then serves as a moral challenge, to test the individuals involved, and then based on their actions and words, their fates are decided. For example, as with Abraham, Lot proved exceptionally hospitable, even risking his life. Lot’s wife proved unable to follow the command of the angels. The daughters were seemingly willing to be sacrificed to save the angels, and the sons-in-law scoffed at the whole thing. So, Lot and his daughters proved themselves worthy of living. And then, we are indeed told at the end of this moral-test vision, after the description of these moral tests, and after the destruction of Sodom, and the escape of Lot, his wife, and his daughters, after the turning of the wife to a pillar of salt, that:
“as the Lord destroyed [Sodom..] He remembered Abraham....and God sent Lot from out of the midst of the destruction.....and his two daughters with him..”
Visions and Moral Tests
The Appropriateness of the Vision State
The visions/dreams of a prophet can be interpreted as a means by which God can test the prophet’s moral strength - creating a complete mental scenario in the prophet’s mind, in order to test the response. The prophet at the time would not be in an ordinary sleep state. Instead he is as fully in control of his mental characteristics as he would be if he were wide awake. He can exert his will, and use his intelligence, exactly as he would were he awake. The response may be purely mental, but it is exactly that - Man’s deepest intention - which interests God. For God to test someone, there is no need to put the person into an actual physical situation. Instead, a complete scenario is constructed and inserted into the person’s mental awareness in such a way that it seems perfectly real, yet allows his psyche, intelligence, and will to operate as though he were awake.
In an ordinary dream , it is the subconscious which constructs the dream-scenarios, and the subconscious which reacts. In the case of a prophetic dream or vision, the dream/vision scenario is directly implanted by God, and it is the entire waking faculties of the subject which controls the reaction.
The Appropriateness of the Garden of Eden Account as a Vision
By adapting the foregoing approach of the Rambam regarding prophetic encounters, it may be possible to interpret the second creation account as a literal description of mental events in the mind of man. Indeed, the second account is about man’s obedience to God, man’s connection to God, man’s use of free will and so on, all of which are mental issues, and which have to be determined at the mental level.
..............
Th
e only events which can be initiated by man are his free willed decisions. All else occurs in accordance with the laws of nature, including its inherent random element [due to the quantum nature of events at their
fundamental level]. Man is therefore responsible only for his freely willed decisions, nothing else. That is, only the mental events connected with the making of a free willed decision is of moral relevance.
............
To make a moral evaluation of a subject what one needs to know is various information regarding the mental state of the subject. If one knows all about human psychology and
the effect of the individual’s genes and environment, the particular abilities and limitations of the individual, whether the person weighed carefully all the factors known to him
, whether he was sincere, whether he felt that he was acting correctly or not, what his mental state is [and so on], then a moral evaluation can be made if the criteria for such an
evaluation are available. The actual physical events and their consequences are irrelevant to the question of whether or not the subject acted rightly or wrongly.
When one man judges another however, since he cannot know the other’s thoughts, he can rely only on what is apparent to him - namely, the actions of the subject, and perhaps
the consequences of that action. However, one cannot always correctly judge the subject’s intentions and emotions from his actions. And certainly one’s intentions are not
always directly deducible from the results of one’s actions. Furthermore, the mental struggle accompanying a decision are not visible in the action which follows the decision.
And, being human, one cannot be sure that one’s moral standards or criteria for judgement are valid.
Nevertheless, it is the mental arena which is of moral relevance, not the physical. For an understanding of the moral dimension, if the exact sequence of mental events are known
,
no additional information is added by an
analysis of the consequent physical actio
ns and their physical ramifications. Because of the l
imitations of huma
n know
led
ge
an
d understanding, judging according to results of actions rather than their intent is often unavoidable, but these are then not moral judgements but rather legal judgements - albeit
morally sanctioned ones
The Garden of Eden Account as a Moral Test
If th
e eve
nts in
Eden were to occur in an ordinary purely physical context, one can speculate that the elements of interest to God would be the mental events in the minds of the protagonists.
In fact, not only
is it sufficient to present the dilemma in a men
tal rather than physical context, it may be preferable. Physical scenarios may b
e limited by considerations such as conformance to the laws of nature, and they may involve unwanted interference b
y extraneous elements. Onl
y a men
tal construct can
be
designed to provide the optimal scenario. Therefore, since it is within God’s power to create the situation directly in the subject’s mind, we can perhaps assume that God would do so.
Indeed, in the case of a seminal conflict such as that presented to Man in Eden, it is eminently desirable to ensure that no extraneous events interfere with the situation. The best way to ensure this is to present the conflict within the context of a directly implanted mental vision.
As stated above, Rambam states that even angels seen by two people at the same time [as with Manoakh and his wife, parents of Samson], were seen in a dream/vision by both simultaneously. Thus it is possible for both Adam and Eve to have shared the same vision, with the events in the vision interacting in the same way that events would interact in an actual physical context.
The Garden of Eden and Science
As w
e have seen, Ram
bam states that all prophetic
encounters other than those of Moshe are
to be interpreted as having occurred in dreams or visions. The qu
estion is whether or no
t Ad
am is considered as a p
ro
phet. And if so, was he perhaps on a different level, perhaps similar to that of Moshe, or even higher, so that his prophetic experiences were not restricted to dreams and visions.
Scien
tific evidence doe
s not seem to support the historicity
or physical possibility of the events related in the sec
ond creation account if these were physical events in the external w
rld as opposed to mental events. Therefore, if Adam was a prophet like all others - exce
pt Moshe - and his experiences occurred in a vision, they present no difficulty in themselves to scientific theory. Howev
er if Adam was in a categ
ory oth
er th
an
the
other prophets, so that the events related occurred in the physical external world rather than in a vision, then there would seem to be an apparent conflict with scientific theory.
However, even in such a case, since the events in the Garden of Eden occurred prior to the establishment of the laws
of
natur
e, the eve
nts did not occ
ur
in the p
hysical universe as we know of it, and would not have effects in the physical universe, and would therefore not leave traces detectable via modern scientific investigation.
Eith
er way then, the
Garden of Eden account ca
nnot pres
ent a contradictio
n to
any physical laws, or to any theories based on these laws - either way they occurred in a non-physical context, as part of a vision which Adam was granted, or in some other manner.
Adam As Prophet
According to many
Traditional sources, until his rebellion Adam exi
sted on a higher spiritual level than Man today, and his body wa
s not a purely physical one. Therefore one might conclude that, like
with Moshe, Adam was an exception to the rule, and the events refe
rring to him related in the Bibl
e were not par
t of a vis
ion. That is, that the narrative in the Bible regarding Adam is refers to events in the outside physical universe rather than to mental events in the mind of a prophet - that is, a vi
sion.
On the other hand, if the even
ts are such as would be impossible
except with a being on the spiritual level of Ada
m, possessing a spiritualized b
ody, then p
erhaps it is incorrect to say that they were actual physical events. We would then not interpret the accounts referring to Adam as being descriptions of events in the outside univ
ers
e.
Alterna
tively, the dia
logue between God and
Adam continued after the eatin
g of the Tree of Knowledge, without any apparen
t change in the level or t
ype of communication. Therefore if Adam’s level after eating was that of ordinary man, perhaps this means that his dialogues previously were also of the ordinary prophetic type.
It may be however that Ada
m’s level changed only after the expulsion from Eden, so that one cann
ot say as above that the earlier interchanges were at the ordinary prophetic level. In fact, in the s
ame way that his placement in Eden meant an increase in his status rather than a change
in his physical location [See Gen. R. 15:5 and 16:8], the expulsion of Adam from Eden might mean p
recisely this downward change in his status . Indeed after the expulsion there is no recorded dialogue b
etween God and Adam , and no reco
rd of any non-
natural e
ve
n
t occurring to Adam. Thus perhaps all the events recounted occurred only while Adam was on a higher level, in a spiritualized body - that is, while he was ‘in the Garden of Ed
en’.
Nev
erthe
less as we
stat
ed
above, if the events are such as would be impossible except to a being such as Adam with a spiritualized body, then perhaps it is incorrect to say that they were actual physical events.
Prophetic Encounters and their Concomitant Events
To say that Moshe saw events not in a vision does not necessarily mean that he perceived events which were occurring in the outside universe - it may be that his special higher level of prophecy was that he perceived events while awake rather than while in a vision trance, but that the events which he perceived were not themselves actual physical events in the outside world.
For example, since God is not physical , God has no ‘voice’. Since God is not physical, God is not located anywhere, and therefore, a ‘voice from God’ cannot be said to necessarily originate from a unique location. Therefore we imagine that ‘and God spoke to Moshe’ may mean something like “and God caused Moshe’s mind to sense the following words”, rather than necessarily meaning “a sound wave of vibrating air molecules proceeded from God’s mouth to Moshe’s ear”.
In addition, using the ordinary definitions of the word, a bush cannot be on fire and yet not be consumed, since the fire is is itself energy released via the consumption of the material of the bush. One would instead probably interpret Moshe’s seeing a burning bush as meaning “God caused Moshe to perceive a burning bush which was not consumed”, or “God caused Moshe to see a real bush, and to perceive it as though it were burning yet not consumed”....or etc.
It is possible to conclude that even within the Rambam’s approach, even with Moshe events such as the burning bush occurred in a vision, whereas the dialogue with God occurred while he was fully awake. Furthermore, even if prophetic events such as the burning bush were perceived by Moshe when fully awake, this does not mean that they occurred in the physical universe. Rather, they could just as well have been mental events experienced by Moshe while in a fully awakened state. That is, Moshe perceived the bush to be on fire, and actually physically walked over to it, and actually physically removed his shoes, and actually physically spoke the words recorded in the Torah. However, perhaps the sight of the burning bush was present in his mind only - another person in the vicinity would not have noticed it [unless God specifically placed that ‘view’ into their mind]. Similarly, God’s voice sounded in Moshe’s mind, but would not have been heard by anyone else.
Thus a person observing the entire event would not see any non-natural event. They would see only Moshe’s responses to the Divine, not the Divine itself. [Just as Bil’am did not see the angel which his donkey saw and perhaps thought his donkey had gone mad, those watching Moshe would probably consider his actions to be an indication of insanity.][Bil’am’s seeing the donkey swerve for no reason, and hitting and cursing it, may also have been part of his vision. Or, the hitting and cursing could have been real......etc.] Indeed, the Torah tells us “And God saw that he [Moshe] had turned to see [the burning bush]” as though this in itself were a test, implying that ordinary people would not have noticed anything unusual.
Rambam: Adam as Prophet, and the Laws of Nature
R
ambam
states clearly that
only Moshe was on a level
sufficiently high for him to be able to exper
ience dialogue with God in a full waking state, implying th
at Adam was not on this level, and therefore that God’s command to Adam, an
d Adam’s dialogues with God, all occurred in a vision, as with all prophets other than M
oshe. However, if according to Rambam Adam was like other prophets, so that his dialogues wit
h God and his no
n-natural
ex
pe
rie
nce
s occurred in a vision rather than physically, it would seem that this conclusion would have been significant enough to warrant that Rambam would have mentioned it explicitly.
Perhaps the reason Rambam does not mention Adam in this connection i
s tha
t there was no n
eed to. According to Ram
bam, based on ‘all the Rabbis’, the entire
Garde
n of Eden st
ory occurred prior to the ins
titution by God of the laws of nature. Thus, since these events were not in conflict with the laws of nature, Rambam felt no need to consider these events as occurring in a vision.
If
one inte
rpr
ets th
ese eve
nts a
s occu
rring in the when
the laws of nature were in
effect, then perhaps one can
categorize Adam’s experience with all
other prophetic experiences, so that they occurre
d in a vision, or in the partly spiritual plane of Adam’s spi
ritual
ized
b
ody
. If they occurred prior to the institution of physical law, then they necessarily occurred in a non-ordinarily-physical plane. Either way, they were not ordinarily-physical events.
From
Rambam’s words it is n
ot clear whether or not he considers Adam
to have been a prophet at all
, and if s
o whether he
was
a prophet on the same level as all the other prophets other than Moshe. On the one hand Rambam seems to imply that Adam was indeed a prophet. In his words [”Guide” II:39]:
“..the
prophecy
of Moses was differe
nt from that of other prophets; we
will now exp
lain t
ha
t this distinction alone qualified him for proclaiming the Torah, a mission without parallel in the history from Adam to Moses, or among the prophets who came after him.”
However, the next quote:
“There were prophets before Moses, as the patriarchs Shem, Eber, Noakh, Meshuselakh, and Khanokh....”
see
ms to im
ply that Ada
m was not a pro
phet. However, perhaps Rambam does not mention Adam since it is obvious that he was a prophet since not only did God speak to him, but God actually conversed with him.