Angel or Avatar?
When Jacob blesses his grandchildren Ephraim and Manasseh shortly before his death, he begins with these words:
讛指讗直志诇止讛执讬诐 讗植铿蹲 讛执转职讛址铿贾白涳 讗植讘止转址讬 诇职驻指谞指讬讜 铿懼白指讛指诐 讜职讬执爪职讞指拽
讛指讗直志诇止讛执讬诐 讛指专止注侄讛 讗止转执讬 诪值注锃嬜撝醋 注址讚志讛址铿癸瓔诐 讛址铿吨蹲:
讛址铿局纷溨白愔缸氈 讛址铿仓棺愔底 讗止转执讬 诪执铿恢缸溨咀指注
讬职讘指专值讱职 讗侄转志讛址锃职注指专执讬诐
The God before whom my fathers, Abraham and Isaac, were steadfast,
The God who guided me from the beginning of my life until today,
The malakh who saved me from all misfortune鈥
He should bless these lads.
(Gen. 48.15b鈥16)
The second of these verses is often sung aloud in when children have their aliyah on Simhat Torah and by some parents at bedtime each night. That melody has made these words familiar to many, but their meaning is not clear. Who, exactly, does Jacob call upon to bless the lads?
The four lines that begin Jacob鈥檚 blessing form a single sentence. The first three lines consist of noun phrases (鈥渢he God before whom . . . ,鈥 鈥渢he God who . . . ,鈥 and 鈥渢he malakh who . . . 鈥), and the fourth finally provides a verb (鈥渂less鈥), which, in Hebrew, contains its own pronoun (鈥渉e鈥). To whom does this pronoun refer? Two nouns precede the verb: 鈥淕od鈥 and then 鈥malakh,鈥 which literally means 鈥渕essenger, someone on a mission.鈥 Almost always, the malakh is a heavenly messenger鈥攊n other words, an , a semidivine being on . So we might follow by rendering this word in verse 16 as 鈥渁ngel鈥 and regarding it as the subject of the verb 鈥渂less.鈥 But in that case, what is the noun 鈥淕od鈥 doing in the first two lines? (Grammatically, the verb is singular, so God and God鈥檚 messenger cannot both serve as its subject.) And why does Jacob hope the angel will do the work of blessing the lads rather than God?
One attempt to answer this question appears in the commentary of Radak (Rabbi David Kimchi, 1160鈥1236). Radak explains that Jacob first mentions God, the ultimate source of redemption, in verse 15 and then proceeds to the angel who actually delivers God鈥檚 blessing:
讗诪专 注诇 注爪诪讜 讛讗志诇讛讬诐 砖讛讟讬讘 注诪讬 诪注讜讚讬. 讜讗诪专 讗讞专 讻谉 讛诪诇讗讱, 诇驻讬 砖诪注砖讛 讛讗志诇 讛讜讗 注诇 讬讚讬 讗诪爪注讬诐 讜讛诪诇讗讻讬诐 讛诐 砖诇讜讞讬诐 诪讛讗志诇 诇注讘讚讬讜 诇砖讜诪专诐 讜诇讛讟讬讘 诪注砖讬讛诐…诇驻讬讻讱 讗诪专 讛讙讜讗诇 讗讜转讬 诪讻诇 专注 讻讬 砖诇讞讜 诇讬 诇讙讗诇讬 诪讻诇 专注 讜诇讘专讻谞讬, 讻谉 讬讘专讱 讗转 讛谞注专讬诐.
He [Jacob] said about himself that God had assisted him from the beginning of his life. Then he mentions the angel, because an action of God is carried out by intermediaries. The angels are messengers sent by God to His servants to guard them and to make them successful . . . Therefore he says, 鈥淭丑别 angel who saved me from all misfortune,鈥 meaning, 鈥淗e sent him to me to redeem me from all misfortune and to bless me. So, too, he should bless these lads.鈥
Another answer is found in the commentary of Ovadiah Seforno (c. 1475鈥1549): Jacob expresses the hope that the angel would bless his grandsons in the event that they were unworthy of receiving blessings directly from God. Like Radak, Seforno attempts to link the blessing to God while regarding the angel as the actual subject of the verb in line 4.
The commentary of Ramban (Moshe ben Nachman, 1194鈥揷. 1270) moves in a completely different direction. His interpretation will seem surprising, perhaps even shocking, to some readers, but he does the best job of accounting for the grammar and poetic structure of our biblical passage. The first two lines in Jacob鈥檚 statement parallel each other: they contain the same subject, 鈥淕od,鈥 followed by a description of the personal relationship between God and Jacob鈥檚 family. The third line continues the parallel structure: 鈥淭丑别 malakh who saved me鈥 matches 鈥淭丑别 God who guided me.鈥 What we find here, then, are three parallel lines couched in a deliberately repetitive style common in biblical poetry. The repetition suggests that 鈥淕od鈥 in the first line, 鈥淕od鈥 in the second line, and 鈥malakh鈥 in the third line refer to the same individual. 鈥淕od鈥 and 鈥malakh鈥 are two terms for a single subject who blesses the lads in the fourth line. This parallelism seems to underlie Ramban鈥檚 explanation of the term malakh:
讛诪诇讗讱 讛讙讜讗诇 讛讜讗 讛注讜谞讛 讗讜转讜 讘注转 爪专转讜, 讜砖讗诪专 诇讜: 讗谞讻讬 讛讗志诇 讘讬转 讗志诇 (讘专讗砖讬转 诇讗:讬讙), 讜讛讜讗 砖谞讗诪专 注诇讬讜: 讻讬 砖诪讬 讘拽专讘讜 (砖诪讜转 讻讙:讻讗).
鈥淭丑别 malakh who saved me from all misfortune鈥 refers to the one who answered Jacob at the time of his misfortune, saying to him, 鈥業 am the God Bethel鈥 (Gen. 31.13). Concerning Him it was said, 鈥淸I shall send a malakh in front of you to guard you on the journey . . . Obey Him . . . ] For My identity is within Him鈥 (Exod. 23.20鈥21).
The first of the two verses Ramban quotes refers to an earlier passage in Genesis where God answered Jacob at a place called Bethel, which is both a geographic name and a divine name in ancient Hebrew and related languages (Gen. 28.10鈥19). In other words, the malakh Jacob mentions in our parashah is not a messenger of God. He is God! The same is true of the malakh in the passage from Exodus that Ramban cites. The reason the Israelites should obey the malakh there is because the malakh shares God鈥檚 identity or name.
These are not the only verses where malakh denotes God rather than an angel. The term refers to a small-scale manifestation of God鈥檚 presence elsewhere in the Torah[1], as well as in some passages from Nevi鈥檌m and Ketuvim. In these texts, the malakh is God, but not all of God鈥攁n approachable, user-friendly side of God. Narratives that use the term malakh this way, typically tell us that a malakh appeared to a human character.[2] As they describe the dialogue between them, however, they simply state, 鈥淕od said鈥 or 鈥渢he LORD said,鈥 not 鈥渢he malakh said,鈥 because all these terms refer to the same being. The word malakh used in this sense resembles the word avatara in Sanskrit: both designate a phenomenon that makes a transcendent, heavenly deity perceptible within our world. In the passages I鈥檝e discussed, 鈥渁vatar鈥 would be a much better translation of malakh than 鈥渁ngel.鈥 To be sure, in most biblical texts the term does mean 鈥渁ngel, heavenly messenger.鈥 Texts that use malakh to mean 鈥渁vatar鈥 are the exception, but they do crop up throughout the Bible.
Another name some Israelites used for this small-scale manifestation was 鈥淏ethel.鈥 We already saw this term in Genesis 31.13, which Ramban quoted in his commentary to Genesis 48.16. This name also appears in Hosea 12.5:[3]
铿敝凤侄讟侄谉 注指拽址讘 讗侄转志讗指讞执讬讜
:铿底懼白愶瓔谞锃 铿缸指讛 讗侄转志讗直志诇止讛执讬诐
讜址铿怪革址专 讗侄诇志诪址诇职讗指讱职 讜址铿怪蛔浿缸
铿敝缸浿缸 讜址铿怪醋白椫凤瓈侄谉志诇锃
铿敝底欁咀愔抵咀 讬执诪职爪指讗侄锃铿
:讜职铿缸 讬职讚址铿敝底 注执铿局缸狅
:讜址讬志讛讜指讛 讗直志诇止讛值讬 讛址锃喼白懼缸愶瓔转 讬职志讛讜指讛 讝执讻职专锃
In the womb [Jacob] cheated his brother,
And as a grown man he wrestled with God.
He wrestled with a malakh and endured,
He cried and pleaded with Him,
It was Bethel who met him.
There He spoke with us鈥
It was Yhwh, the God hosts! Yhwh is His name.
(Hos. 12.4鈥6)
These verses present a series of identifications: First, the malakh with whom Jacob wrestled when he returned to Canaan (Gen. 32.25鈥33) is identical with Bethel, the deity who appeared to Jacob when he fled Canaan years earlier (Gen. 28.10鈥19; cf. 31.13). Second, Bethel (i.e., the malakh) is none other than Yhwh, the God of Israel.
These texts show that God does not always appear to humanity as the overwhelming and commanding Presence that displayed itself on Mount Sinai. God sometimes appears on a scale more easily accessible to human beings, as the malakh or Bethel. This form of God is less dangerous to humans than the full-fledged divine manifestation known from Sinai. This does not mean the malakh causes no fear at all. The Torah tells us that when Moses first saw the malakh, he found its tremendous mystery fascinating yet frightening (Exod. 3.2鈥6). Still, this user-friendly manifestation results from divine grace. The great biblical scholar Moshe Greenberg taught that what allows for dialogue between God and humanity is 鈥淕od鈥檚 willingness to adjust himself to the capacities of men, to take into consideration and make concessions to human frailty.鈥[4]
The idea that God enters the cosmos in diverse forms and to varying degrees without compromising God鈥檚 oneness is not limited to the biblical concept of malakh as avatar. It reappears much later in Jewish mysticism, most famously in the kabbalistic doctrine of the sefirot, ten manifestations of God within the universe (as opposed to ein sof, the unknowable essence of God outside the universe). Descriptions of the sefirot seem to imply they enjoy a degree of individual existence. Yet they never attain the level of independent beings, and kabbalistic texts warn against praying to them as if they were distinct deities. Many modern Jews have regarded kabbalah as a revisionary transformation of biblical and rabbinic monotheism proposed by religious radicals from the medieval era. Jacob鈥檚 brief blessing to his grandsons demonstrates the opposite is the case: the understanding of God鈥檚 unity as encompassing what appears to us as multiplicity has deep roots in Jewish tradition that go back to the Bible itself. This week鈥檚 parashah helps show that kabbalistic thinkers were the most authentic sort of religious innovators: as much as they created something new, they restored something ancient[5].
The publication and distribution of the 91快播 Commentary are made possible by a generous grant from Rita Dee (z鈥漧) and Harold Hassenfeld (z鈥漧).
[1] Notably, this is always in verses that we modern biblical scholars identify as coming from the according to . The P and D strands, however, reject the concept of divine presence underlying the idea of an avatar.
[2] See, for example, Genesis 18鈥19, Exodus 3, and Judges 6.
[3] The haftarah containing this verse, Hosea 11.7鈥12.12, for Parashat Vayetzei, others for Vayishlah, is not employed by most Conservative synagogues.
[4] Greenberg, a Hebrew University professor and recipient of the State of Israel鈥檚 highest civilian award, was a 91快播 graduate. See Greenberg鈥檚 Understanding Exodus [New York: 91快播, 1969], 94; on the malakh, see also 70.
[5] 讞址讚值旨芝砖讈 讬指诪值謻讬谞讜旨 讻职旨拽侄纸讚侄诐 (Lamentations 5:21b)
