Introduction: The Vision of Rabbi Yishmael Kohen Gadol
The Gemara in Berakhot 7a records that Rabbi Yishmael ben Elisha, the Kohen Gadol, once entered the Holy of Holies on Yom Kippur to offer the ketoret (incense). There he experienced a vision: "I saw Akhatriel Yah Hashem Tzeva'ot sitting upon a high and exalted throne." This raises immediate theological difficulties. Can a human being see HaKadosh Baruch Hu? Does the verse not state, "No man shall see Me and live" (Exodus 33:20)? Furthermore, what does it mean that the Holy One "sits upon a throne"—does He possess physical form?
Rav Saadia Gaon's Defense Against the Karaites
Rav Saadia Gaon (died 942), as cited in Otzar HaGeonim, engaged in polemics with the Karaites regarding such aggadic passages. A Karaite named Chivi al-Balkhi accused the Sages of attributing corporeality to God—claiming that according to the Talmud, HaKadosh Baruch Hu possesses a physical body that can be seen. Rav Saadia responded that this critic was a "shote otzum," a great fool who did not understand the Gemara and could not understand it due to his intellectual stubbornness.
Rav Saadia argued that if one finds such language problematic in the Talmud, one should first address the same language in Scripture itself. The Torah states that Moshe, Aharon, Nadav, Avihu, and the seventy elders "saw the God of Israel" (Exodus 24:10). Yeshayahu declared, "I saw the Lord" (Isaiah 6:1). Michah said, "I saw the Lord sitting upon His throne" (1 Kings 22:19). Yechezkel described visions of fire and the appearance of the Divine Glory.
The resolution, according to Rav Saadia, is that all such visions involve "orot nivra'ot"—created lights. When prophets say they "saw God," they mean they perceived a created luminescence that reflects the Divine Presence, not that they beheld the Creator's essence. This created light is the closest approximation to experiencing the transcendent, incorporeal God. Light itself is intangible—you cannot hold it in your hand—and thus serves as the most fitting medium through which finite humans can sense the infinite Divine.
The name "Akhatriel" itself hints at this concept: it combines "keter" (crown) and "El" (God), suggesting the closest level of revelation to the Divine. When Rabbi Yishmael reported seeing "Akhatriel," he saw this created reflection of Divine light, not God Himself. Importantly, Rav Saadia notes that this vision did not make Rabbi Yishmael a prophet—prophecy had ceased by the end of the Second Temple period—but it was a genuine spiritual experience in the place where the Shekhinah dwells.
Rabbeinu Chananel's Interpretation
Rabbeinu Chananel (11th century, North Africa) similarly explains that Rabbi Yishmael saw "the Glory" (HaKavod) through "re'iyat halev"—an inner perception or vision of the heart, not a physical sighting. Some authorities suggested that Akhatriel refers to an angel, but Rabbeinu Chananel maintains that it refers to the Divine Glory itself—a manifestation of God's presence, not a separate angelic being.
The Dispute Between Rambam and Ramban on Prophecy
A related theological question concerns how God communicates with prophets. The Rambam in Hilkhot Yesodei HaTorah (chapter 7) maintains that only Moshe Rabbeinu received direct communication from God; all other prophets received their prophecy through an angel as intermediary. This follows from the Rambam's strict conception of Divine unity—there is only one God, one ultimate revelation, and therefore only Moshe could experience direct Divine speech.
The Ramban disagrees. According to the Ramban, God can reveal Himself through different modes and levels. This multiplicity of revelation corresponds to the doctrine of the sefirot—God manifests through various attributes. Moshe received revelation at the highest level (the sefirah of Tiferet, associated with the Divine Name Havayah), while other prophets received revelation at lower levels (such as Malkhut, associated with the name Elokim). When Scripture describes an angel speaking to someone, sometimes this angel is merely a messenger and the recipient is not a prophet (as with Hagar), but sometimes the angel itself is a manifestation of the Divine—the special angel of which it says "My Name is within him" (Exodus 23:21).
This is the angel that Yaakov called "the angel who has redeemed me from all evil" (Genesis 48:16) and that appeared to Yehoshua saying "I have now come" (Joshua 5:14). According to the Ramban, certain angels—including the one Chazal call Metatron—represent sefirot through which the Divine can be encountered. Different individuals receive revelation at different levels of intimacy based on their spiritual capacity.
The Significance of Human Blessing
The Gemara continues that in this vision, HaKadosh Baruch Hu said to Rabbi Yishmael: "Yishmael, My son, bless Me." Rabbi Yishmael responded with the prayer: "May it be Your will that Your mercy overcome Your anger, and may Your mercy prevail over Your attributes, and may You treat Your children with the attribute of mercy and enter for them beyond the strict letter of the law." The Holy One nodded His head in acceptance.
The lesson derived from this episode is that "the blessing of a common person (hedyot) should not be light in your eyes." HaKadosh Baruch Hu desires our blessings and praises. He wants a relationship with us—He loves us and wants us to reciprocate that love and desire for connection. The prayer Rabbi Yishmael offered focuses on love overcoming strict judgment: when we ask God to transcend "mishuras hadin" (the letter of the law), we request that He treat us not according to rigid rules but out of love.
The Nature of Divine Anger
The Gemara next addresses the theme of Divine anger with a teaching from Rabbi Yochanan in the name of Rabbi Yosei: One should not attempt to appease a person in the moment of his anger. The source is HaKadosh Baruch Hu Himself, who told Moshe after the sin of the Golden Calf: "My face (anger) shall go, and then I will give you rest" (Exodus 33:14). The meaning is: wait until My anger passes, and then we can rebuild our relationship.
This leads to a fundamental question: Does HaKadosh Baruch Hu actually become angry? The Gemara affirms that He does, citing the verse: "God is angry every day" (Psalms 7:12). But for how long? A "rega"—a moment. The Gemara offers various calculations for how brief this moment is—fractions of a second. And no creature can identify this precise moment, except for one: Bilaam the wicked.
The Character of Bilaam
The Gemara identifies Bilaam as one who "knew the mind of the Most High" (Numbers 24:16)—specifically, he knew how to identify that split-second when God was angry. The Gemara immediately challenges this characterization: "He did not even know the mind of his donkey!" The entire episode of Bilaam and the talking donkey is meant to portray him as ridiculous—a man who claims cosmic knowledge but whose animal is wiser than he.
The resolution is that Bilaam's "knowledge of the Most High" was limited to knowing when that momentary Divine anger occurred. His plan was to curse Israel at precisely that moment, thereby exploiting the Divine anger for destructive purposes.
There is an extraordinary Midrash in Sifrei Devarim that compares Bilaam to Moshe Rabbeinu: "No prophet arose in Israel like Moshe, but among the nations of the world, there arose one"—and that was Bilaam. This comparison sounds paradoxical: Bilaam is a prophet yet a wicked man. To be a prophet should require righteousness.
Another Midrash illuminates this: Bilaam was like a minister in God's government, while Moshe was like God's personal servant. In terms of rank, Bilaam might seem higher. But who has more access to the king—his minister or his servant? The servant sees the king in informal moments, can speak freely without political calculation. The minister, by contrast, is always maneuvering, trying to manipulate situations for his own advantage.
This captures the essential difference: Moshe asked, "What does God want?" and sought to fulfill that will. Bilaam had genuine prophetic gifts and charismatic powers to communicate with supernatural forces, but he sought to manipulate them for his own purposes. He did not serve God; he tried to use divine power.
Avraham Avinu Versus Bilaam: Two Men on a Mountain
The Mishnah in Avot (5:19) contrasts Bilaam with Avraham Avinu: "Whoever possesses these three traits is among the disciples of Avraham Avinu: a good eye (ayin tovah), a humble spirit (ru'ach nemukhah), and a lowly soul (nefesh shefalah). And whoever possesses these three traits is among the disciples of Bilaam the wicked: an evil eye (ayin ra'ah), a haughty spirit (ru'ach gevoha), and a greedy soul (nefesh rechavah)."
The connection becomes clear when we consider that both figures stood on a mountain looking down at others. Avraham pleaded for Sodom, searching with binoculars, as it were, for any possible merit: perhaps there are fifty righteous, perhaps forty-five, perhaps ten. That is ayin tovah—looking for good in others. When speaking to God, Avraham declared, "I am but dust and ashes"—the epitome of ru'ach nemukhah.
Bilaam also stood on a mountain looking down at Israel—a fundamentally good nation, as he himself would proclaim, "How goodly are your tents, O Yaakov!" Yet what was he searching for? Something negative, some sin, some flaw that might enable him to curse them. That is ayin ra'ah. And he boasted of being "one who knows the mind of the Most High"—the ultimate ru'ach gevoha.
Bilaam's strategy was to identify the moment of Divine anger and exploit it. But consider: if HaKadosh Baruch Hu is angry for only one brief moment each day and loving for all the rest, what does He truly want? Obviously, He wants to be loving. Bilaam was trying to force God to act against His own will. HaKadosh Baruch Hu is wiser than Bilaam and refused to be manipulated.
Divine Protection: The Meaning of "Tzidkot Hashem"
The prophet Michah calls Israel to remember: "My people, remember what Balak king of Moab advised and what Bilaam ben Be'or answered him… that you may know the righteous acts of the Lord" (Micah 6:5). What was this great act of righteousness? Rabbi Elazar explains: "HaKadosh Baruch Hu said to Israel: Know how many acts of righteousness I performed for you, that I did not become angry during the days of Bilaam the wicked. For if I had become angry, no remnant or survivor would have remained of Israel."
The people encamped in the plains of Moab were unaware of the cosmic drama unfolding on the mountain above them. Bilaam was poised to destroy them, and they did not even know they had an enemy. This is the paradigm of Divine providence (hashgachah): HaKadosh Baruch Hu protects Israel even when they are unaware of the danger.
The Story of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi and the Warning Against Charismatic Manipulation
The Gemara relates that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi had a neighbor who was a "min" (heretic, possibly referring to a Christian or Sadducee—someone who believes in Scripture but rejects the Oral Torah). This neighbor would torment him with polemical arguments about how to interpret verses. One day, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi decided he would eliminate his adversary. He took a rooster, placed it between the legs of his bed, and watched it carefully, waiting to identify the precise moment of Divine anger so he could curse the heretic.
When the moment arrived, he fell asleep and missed it. Upon awakening, he understood the message: "This is not the proper way to behave." He had tried to be like Bilaam—using esoteric knowledge for violent purposes. The Gemara's lesson is that charismatic powers, however genuine, must never be used for destruction. We aspire to be disciples of Avraham and Moshe, not of Bilaam. As the verse states, "His mercy is upon all His works" (Psalms 145:9)—HaKadosh Baruch Hu does not wish to destroy His creatures, even the wicked. He desires their repentance. And "it is not good for the righteous to punish" (Proverbs 17:26)—the tzaddik should not occupy himself with punishment but with persuasion and education.
What Causes Divine Anger
The Gemara identifies one cause of Divine anger: each morning when the sun rises, the kings of the East and West crown themselves and bow down to the sun. This nature worship contradicts the fundamental principle that God is transcendent—He created nature and is not bound by it. The Shekhinah dwells in the West specifically to indicate that we turn our backs on nature worship. Our God is not the sun; He is the One who made the sun and who intervenes in natural processes according to an ethical code.
Education Rather Than Punishment
Rabbi Yochanan teaches in the name of Rabbi Yosei: Better is one self-reproach in a person's heart than many lashes. Resh Lakish says: Better than one hundred lashes. The source is the prophet Hoshe'a (2:8-9), where God describes how He will block the path of the unfaithful wife (representing Israel) with thorns, until she says, "I will return to my first husband, for it was better for me then than now."
The model of Divine discipline is educational, not punitive. Physical punishment may generate fear of consequences, but it does not change a person internally. The goal is for the individual to learn the lesson themselves and choose to return. This requires patience but produces genuine transformation.
Moshe Rabbeinu's Three Requests After the Golden Calf
Following the sin of the Golden Calf, Moshe made three requests of HaKadosh Baruch Hu:
First, that the Shekhinah should continue to rest upon Israel despite their sin. This was granted, as indicated by the verse, "Is it not in Your going with us?" (Exodus 33:16).
Second, that the Shekhinah should not rest upon the other nations—that Israel's relationship with God should be exclusive. This too was granted: "We shall be distinguished, I and Your people" (Exodus 33:16).
Third, Moshe asked: "Make known to me Your ways" (Exodus 33:13)—explain to me how You govern the world. Specifically, why do righteous people suffer and wicked people prosper? This is the central question of theodicy.
Theodicy: The Problem of Divine Justice
This is the great riddle of existence. We believe in hashgachah pratit (Divine providence), yet observation does not always confirm it. Some righteous people live difficult, miserable lives—"tzaddik v'ra lo" (a righteous person who suffers). Some wicked people prosper—"rasha v'tov lo" (a wicked person who has it good).
Why can providence not be immediately evident? Because if HaKadosh Baruch Hu responded automatically—if good behavior immediately produced sunshine and blessing—there would be no free will. Everyone would behave well simply for the reward. We discussed previously the concept of tzimtzum: HaKadosh Baruch Hu withdraws Himself, as it were, so that the connection between our actions and their consequences is not immediately visible. We must choose to be good because it is good, because it is the right way to live—not because of instant reward.
Yet life still seems unjust. As C.S. Lewis framed it: Why do bad things happen to good people?
The First Answer: Heredity
The Gemara presents one answer: "Tzaddik v'tov lo"—a righteous person who prospers—is "tzaddik ben tzaddik," a righteous person who is the child of a righteous person. "Tzaddik v'ra lo"—a righteous person who suffers—is "tzaddik ben rasha," a righteous person who is the child of a wicked person. Similarly, "rasha v'tov lo" is "rasha ben tzaddik," and "rasha v'ra lo" is "rasha ben rasha."
The Gemara immediately challenges this: Does not the Torah state "visiting the sins of fathers upon children" (Exodus 20:5)? And does Deuteronomy not state "Fathers shall not be put to death for children" (Deuteronomy 24:16)? The resolution is that children are punished for their parents' sins only when they continue their parents' behavior; when they do not continue those behaviors, they are not punished. Thus, a person can choose to be different from their parents—free will is preserved.
The Second Answer: Degrees of Righteousness
Given the difficulties with the first answer, the Gemara offers another interpretation: "Tzaddik v'tov lo" refers to a "tzaddik gamur"—a completely righteous person. "Tzaddik v'ra lo" refers to a "tzaddik she'eino gamur"—a righteous person who is not completely so. Similarly for the wicked: "rasha v'tov lo" is a wicked person who is not completely wicked, and "rasha v'ra lo" is a completely wicked person.
According to this view, articulated by Rabbi Yochanan, the world does work out: suffering indicates some imperfection in righteousness, while prosperity for the wicked indicates some merit. This is essentially the position of Iyov's friends—when something bad happens to you, you must have done something wrong.
Rabbi Meir's Answer: Beyond Human Understanding
Rabbi Meir disagrees. According to Rabbi Meir—who echoes the position of Iyov himself—there are aspects of Divine providence that transcend human comprehension. Regarding Moshe's third request, to understand God's ways, the Gemara records that HaKadosh Baruch Hu responded: "I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and I will show mercy to whom I will show mercy" (Exodus 33:19)—even to one who is not deserving. Some matters are simply not revealed to human cognition.
Rav Soloveitchik's Approach: Kol Dodi Dofek
Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik opened his famous essay "Kol Dodi Dofek" (1956)—written eight years after the establishment of the State of Israel and eleven years after the Holocaust—with this very Gemara, adopting Rabbi Meir's approach. This was the Rav's first major theological address concerning how to respond to the Holocaust.
The Rav's position is that certain questions are beyond our cognitive capacity. We cannot see God—we established that no one truly sees Him. We cannot fully understand His ways. The question "Why do bad things happen to good people?" may have no humanly comprehensible answer.
Therefore, the Rav argues, we should redirect our energy from the unanswerable "Why?" to the actionable "What now?" Not: Why do bad things happen to good people? Rather: What do good people do when bad things happen to them? We cannot control the reason for suffering, but we can control our response. That is entirely within our power.
This is what Shalom Rosenberg calls the "existential response to evil"—focusing on human reaction rather than philosophical explanation. We are not engaged in theodicy, trying to justify God's logic, which is beyond us. We focus instead on ourselves, on how we meet our circumstances, on how we encounter God within our situation.
The Rav understood this to be the meaning of the conclusion of the Book of Iyov. HaKadosh Baruch Hu appears to Iyov and asks: "Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?" (Job 38:4). The message is: You are too small to comprehend cosmic justice. Your friends are wasting their time with their explanations, and you are wasting your time demanding answers. But then comes the resolution: "The Lord restored the fortunes of Iyov when he prayed for his friends" (Job 42:10).
The Iyov of the book's beginning was self-absorbed—he offered sacrifices for his children but showed no concern for others. Through his suffering and the experience of his friends' visitation (however inadequate their comfort), Iyov learned what it means to need others and to be present for others. When he prayed for his friends, he demonstrated that he had grown. His suffering, while not justified, had been transformed into a lesson.
We can change the meaning of the past by how we respond to it. We cannot undo what happened, but we can transform its significance by what we do next. This insight flows from Rabbi Meir's acknowledgment that Moshe Rabbeinu himself accepted that some things are simply beyond human cognition.
The Conclusion: "You Cannot See My Face"
HaKadosh Baruch Hu told Moshe: "You cannot see My face" (Exodus 33:20). A baraita records a tradition in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korcha: At the burning bush, when I wanted to reveal Myself to you, "Moshe hid his face" (Exodus 3:6). Now, when you want to see—"Now I do not want." The relationship is reciprocal: the distance Moshe initially maintained is reflected back.
However, Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachmani in the name of Rabbi Yonatan offers a different interpretation: Moshe was rewarded for his humility at the bush with three corresponding rewards. Because he hid his face, his face shone when he descended from Sinai. Because he was afraid to gaze, the people feared to approach him. Because he did not look, he merited to behold the "image of the Lord" (Numbers 12:8). The proper response—awe and humility before the Divine—brings greater closeness rather than distance.
Finally, the Gemara interprets the verse "I will remove My hand and you will see My back" (Exodus 33:23): Rav Chana bar Bizna said in the name of Rabbi Shimon Chasida—this teaches that HaKadosh Baruch Hu showed Moshe the knot of the tefillin. This is the source for the phrase in the Shabbat hymn "Adon Olam": "He showed the knot of tefillin to the humble one." Even the greatest revelation Moshe received was a view from behind, an indirect glimpse—underscoring that full apprehension of the Divine remains beyond mortal capacity.
Summary of Key Topics
This shiur addressed: (1) The vision of Rabbi Yishmael in the Holy of Holies and the nature of "seeing God"—which according to Rav Saadia Gaon and Rabbeinu Chananel involves perceiving created lights rather than the Divine essence. (2) The dispute between Rambam and Ramban concerning how prophecy is mediated. (3) The relationship between God and Israel, expressed through Divine "anger" and "love," which describe not changes in God but the state of our relationship with Him. (4) The character of Bilaam as a prototype of charismatic power misused—contrasted with Avraham Avinu and Moshe Rabbeinu, who asked what God wanted rather than seeking to manipulate Him. (5) The story of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi as a warning against using spiritual gifts for destructive purposes. (6) The theodicy question of tzaddik v'ra lo and rasha v'tov lo, with Rabbi Meir's position that some matters transcend human understanding. (7) Rav Soloveitchik's application of this principle: rather than asking why bad things happen, we should ask how we respond—thereby transforming the meaning of our past through our present choices.
