This week’s Torah portion opens with Jacob’s dream, and the verses emphasize that Jacob awoke from his sleep frightened and in surprise. Rashi explains that it was not the prophetic contents of the dream that startled him, but rather, it was that he suddenly realized he had been sleeping in quite the inappropriate location.
“In truth, God is in this place and I was unaware.” (Genesis 28:16-17)
Rashi explains that had Jacob known the significance of the place, he would have slept elsewhere.
What did Jacob mean when he said “yeish Hashem bamakom hazeh,” “God is in this place” — for we seemingly have a b’feirish (explicit) Uncle Moishy song that contests the possibility of this claim:
“Hashem is here, Hashem is there, Hashem is truly everywhere. Up, up, down, down, right, left and all around, here, there and everywhere, that’s where he can be found.” (Uncle Moishy 1:5, 1979)
While a few who cannot really be taken seriously argue that Uncle Moishy and his handlers were being unintentionally provocative by suggesting that God exists in a particular location, or rather, a multitude of locations simultaneously, the vast majority of listeners will take these lyrics, as I think they ought to be taken, as being geared to the young child’s ears in an attempt to convey the message that God is a spiritual entity Who is not in one place anymore or less than any other place — and I think we would all agree that the song would be much worse had it read, “Hashem is not here, Hashem is not there, Hashem is truly nowhere.” The goal, as I see it, was to assert the ubiquitous nature of the Godly presence rather than imply that God has multiple corporeal forms that each exist in a different location.
The question remains, then, what does the verse mean when it says that “God is in this place?” If He’s in all places, what is the considerable significance of His being in this place as well?
In doing my research for this post, I came across a five-year-old post at DovBear that elaborates on the liturgical difficulties associated with mention of God existing in one particular location versus another, but these examples (and more) are easily and quite uncontrivedly explained away using non-literal interpretation of the notion that God exists primarily or even ordinarily in the Heavens. The problem here is that Rashi does not take this route.
Zeroing in on the omniscient narrator’s use of the definite article bamakom (28:11) and, perhaps less authoritatively, Jacob’s own mention of his place of rest as the beis Elokim (“house of the Almighty”) and sha’ar hashamayim (“gate of heaven” — 28:17), Rashi understands that Jacob had, in fact, prophetically selected the future site of the Beis HaMikdash at which to lie down and rest. Even though the Temple in Jerusalem would not be built on the site for a little over 800 years, such projection of future Jewish practice and observance back into pre-Sinaitic times is consistent with Rashi’s approach of doing so in many other instances, such as maintaining that the patriarchs complied with even the rabbinical enactments of Torah law that itself wouldn’t appear on the scene for another 350 years or so.
As usual, Rashi’s propensity for endorsing the mystical approach is consequent to his general embrace of the Akivan philosophy. Although R’ Akiva was at first ridiculed for his eyebrow-raising methods of exegesis, his peculiar mode of interpretation soon gathered immense support among the younger generation, and it was soon established doctrine that the law is in accordance with Rabbi Akiva over any of his colleagues unless he is opposed by the majority — but this is all when it comes to halacha. The views of the R’ Ishmael persisted, despite their relegation to merely influencing Talmudic thought in a somewhat oblique fashion. As we’ve discussed a number of times before, dibra Torah b’lashon bnei adam (“the Torah speaks in human language”), a tenet of the Ishmaelian school of thought, became a cornerstone of scriptural understanding in aggadic portions of the text, was accepted as authoritative by the Talmud and was further eternalized by the considerable likes of R’ Saadia Gaon and Maimonides.
Moses was confounded by the divine pronouncement, “v’asu li mikdash v’shachanti b’socham,” “let them make Me a sanctuary, that I may dwell among them.” (Exodus 25:8) How could an infinite God be contained within a finite structure? In response, though, the verses indeed indicate that the walls were to be constructed, the ark set with its cover, and God would communicate with Moses from atop it between the cherubim.
In the kedusha of the musaf prayer on Shabbos and Yom Tov, we proclaim “m’lo chol ha’aretz k’vodo,” “the entire universe is filled with His glory,” and yet this is immediately tempered with the question, “ayei m’kom k’vodo,” “where is the place of His glory?” In a sense, then, we see that the hashkafa of contemporary Judaism is really a blend of the two schools of thought.
R’ Ishmael was not particular about the direction of prayer because he would focus on the initial aspect of Moses’ conundrum, and a number of Talmudists were known to abide by this leniency (R’ Sheshes, R’ Hoshaiah), while R’ Akiva did not hesitate to speak concretely about the divine presence, and was known for asserting that God actually descended onto Sinai and that the shechina resides in the west. (Bavli BB 25a)
Accordingly, R’ Akiva would interpret this verse literally, while R’ Ishmael would interpret this verse allegorically. Uncle Moishy, it seems, sides with R’ Ishmael on this one.
Search 4 Torah at 4torah.com
Interesting, but there is a much simpler explanation. Yaakov didn’t believe in the omnipresent God of current Orthodox theology, but in a God Who existed in corporeal space, just like all the other gods that populated the world’s pantheons. Perhaps he even believed in a corporeal God. There were Jewish sects who did.
Saying that the Avos kept all of the midirabanans is obviously silly. Insisting that they held of current Orthodox theology is not as obviously ridiculous, but it may be just as anachronistic.
Or you can believe like the Zanzer Rebbe, that the Avos wore white socks’ and Shtreimel’s.:)
Can you point out the source for your above allegation about the Sanzer Rebbe or is just part of urban legend?
That’s an interesting thought — but I can’t see it panning out. In a sense, the Torah is like a movie; the important parts are recounted and the less important parts are left out of the narrative. So we don’t see Jacob making lunch ever except when he’s preparing lentils on that fateful day of the barter for the birthright — is that to say that he never cooked otherwise? Of course not, just like we see footage of Robin Williams going to the bathroom in Mrs. Doubtfire only when it’s instrumental to the plot — the film uses the Mrs. Doubtfire’s gender-bending use of the bathroom for comedic/dramatic purpose once or twice, but you don’t really think that the character urinated only 3 times over the span of the 3 months that is covered in the film.
So we are told of the important points of communication between the patriarchs and God, much like we are told of the important points of communication between Jacob and his wives and his children. I speculate that God informed Jacob of the nature of His entity within a discussion over the years, even though it’s surprising that it was not passed along with enough credibility to future generations among the Children of Israel.
Uncle Moshe was part of a general push on the part of Chasidut to say that Judaism holds from Pantheism. They would always present this view as traditional Torah even though the rishonim were against it and the Arizal also. According to the Ari and the Zohar only Aztilut is Godliness.
Are you confusing pantheism with panENtheism?
Your’ wrong.To equate pantheism with Chasidus and Judaism is a misunderstanding of what pantheism is, for pantheism equates god with the universe\ nature and vise versa, or to be more precise, that “God is all” and “all is God” , and while Chasidus might agree (in a certain sense) that “god is all” (or in all) it most definitely does NOT agree that “All is god”, for to say so would mean that nature IS god (as Spinoza held), rather, according to Chasidus god is much higher and greater than nature.
If anything, it would be more accurate to equate Chasidic philosophy with Panentheism which is not the same as pantheism in the sense that, while it holds that god is within or animates all creation it also holds that god transcends the universe\ nature.
Of course this is all overly simplistic but it will have to do.
My above post was directed at Adam Zur.I agree that he confuses he pantheism with panENtheism?
Some additional insights that address the issue of confusion between Chassidut and pantheism.
It’s very important we distinguish between “G?d” and “that which is G?dly” (G?dliness).
Let me explain G?dliness: All of the creation is sustained by G?d’s will and wisdom. However, in our world, 99.99% of the time, it is in a very disguised and hidden fashion. Often it comes to the point that one of those beings continually sustained by G?dly light will deny the very G?d that sustains it! How this is possible is beyond the scope of what I am writing here. The Kabbalah describes a process of “tzimtzum,” contraction of light, in addition to concealment and encoding of the information that light carries–comparable perhaps to the way an email or an image might be encrypted and encoded when sent over the internet.
What is relevant to our issue is that in some instances that concealment does not occur. The signal may be weak, but the source of light shines through nonetheless. These are the instances within creation we call “kedusha” (holiness); instances that point to their Creator and communicate to us His will and wisdom: Torah, mitzvahs, the tzaddikim (saintly individuals), and any person who is carrying out G?d’s will on earth.
The doctrine of hidden sparks simply states that in fact every creation must contain some glimmer of holiness–or else it could simply not exist. Our mission on earth is to reveal that spark within each thing. In many cases we do that by using it for a mitzvah. In other cases, that is not possible and the only way to reveal that spark is by withstanding the challenges this article of Creation may pose. Each spark has its particular path to be revealed which corresponds to the path of the soul that comes to earth to live in a human body and find that spark and reveal it.
Adam Zur
You claim to have learned Chassidut with the son of Rabbi Birnbaum really doesn’t impress me and is relevant to your knowledge of Chassidut as the price of tea in China.Perhaps you should have learned Chassidut with a Chosid rather then the son of a Litvesher Rosh Yeshiva.
I am confused. Are you saying the R’ Ishmael followers, if in the United States, would not turn to the east to prey?
Yes — had the followers of R’ Ishmael been to the west of Jerusalem, they would not have turned eastward to pray. But this was before the halacha was decided in favor of R’ Akiva.
This would be similar to the argument over whether mehadrin min hamehadrin Chanukah candle lighting proceeds from 1 to 8 like the House of Hillel or from 8 to 1 like the House of Shammai. Those from the House of Shammai observed halacha in accordance with their house — but the halacha has since been decided in favor of the House of Hillel, and one is no longer permitted to observe halacha in accordance with the House of Shammai.
My arguments are meant to have aggadic ramifications, not halachic ones, if that helps.
As an aside, it’s interesting to note that, according to Telushkin + Prager (Why the Jews?, p111-112), Muhammad saw himself as another Moses and was heavily influenced by Jewish law and thought. In the early days of Islam, they claim, Muslims prayed in the direction of the Jewish holy city, Jerusalem, and observed Yom Kippur. It was only later, when Muhammad realized that he had been rejected by the Jews (for they already had monotheism and they already had a Moses — and one who didn’t bungle the text of the Old Testament!) that he substituted Mecca for Jerusalem and Ramadan for Yom Kippur.
In conclusion, the Ishmalites are not even Ishmaelian. 🙂