VAYERA I:EPIPHANIES DIVINE AND HUMAN
"The act ofreceiving guests is greater than the act of receiving the Divine Presence"[Tractate Shabbos 127a]
גדולה הכנסת אורחים מקבלת פני השכינה
The Talmud articulatesthis dictum in light of Avraham’s reaction to the appearance of the guests[Genesis 18:3]. According to the Rabbinic reading of the beginning of theparasha, when the guests appeared at a distance, Avraham had been receiving theDivine Presence. God - in an act of anthropomorphic chesed-modelling - had beenvisiting him in fulfillment of the mitzvah of visiting the sick, i.e., in orderto assuage his pain on the third day following his circumcision. God haddeliberately caused a heat-wave in the area in order to spare Avraham thedifficulty of receiving and serving wayfarers during his recuperation. Avraham,however, was frustrated by this situation; he viewed the absence of potentialguests not as a relief but as a deprivation, a removal of opportunities toactualize his “loving-kindness agenda.” Avraham postulated that the receivingof guests took priority over the receiving of God’s presence, and the Rabbisembraced that prioritization as a principle for humanity.
"Ascribe [thequality of] loving-kindness to Avraham [titen...chesed l'Avraham. Micha7:20]." In this context, we should view Avraham’s “act of receivingguests” as a paradigm for acts of loving-kindness.
The specific Aggadicimage of Avraham's frustration at the absence of people to serve reinforces andintensifies the "plain meaning" [peshat] of the Biblical narrative,which elaborates Avraham's alacrity - reflecting his passionate, proactive desireto feed or to "fuel" the "other". We should also make noteAvraham's taking care to avoid manipulation of the guests, or even peering intotheir private agendas: ואחר - תעבורו"" – “After you aresated, be on your way.”
The aforementioneddictum, "The act of receiving guests is greater than the act of receivingthe Divine Presence," clearly indicates that acts of loving-kindnessrequire a temporary sense of distancing or separating from God. This separationis because chesed requires us to act as God's proxy - on His behalf - insteadof relating to God by communicating (or communing) directly with Him. Avrahamprefers to relate to God by embracing the role of His agent- ofbecoming a provider and enabler of the other, in God’s stead.
Rashi’s midrashiccomment to Genesis 6:9 s.v. es haElokim, whichcontrasts Avraham with Noach, reinforces this concept. The comment notes that,whereas the Torah depicts Noach as walking “with God” it quotesAvraham as referring to “God before Whom [or, in WhosePresence] I have walked…”:
"Noach required[Hashem's] help to support him [in his righteousness], but Avraham, incontrast, was able to strengthen himself and walk independently, due tohis righteousness" [mischazek umis'halech b'tzidko ma'aylav].
This concept - ofdistancing from the Divine when engaging in chesed - should be understood as aphenomenological experience of the benefactor's inner world, and not as anontological reality. The concept does not imply that acts of loving-kindnessconstitute a dismissal of God from the scene. To follow Avraham’s model as itappears in Rashi’s midrashically based elaboration: Avraham Aveinu does not"dismiss" the Almighty when the hot and hungry travelers appear.Rather, he respectfully excuses himself. More precisely: he acknowledges the priorityof absenting himself from the Divine presence - in order to fulfill his inner-directedmandate of fueling, of enabling other human beings. God remains present,waiting patiently, and eventually continues the visit by communicating withAvraham after the travelers leave.
Even as Avrahamdistances himself from God, therefore, God remains with him in two ways:
[1] as a source ofvalue, a paradigm for Avraham’s forthcoming act of chesed through hospitality;and
[2] and even as aShechina, a Divine presence - waiting for Avraham, as it were, on thesidelines.
Avraham, however,withdraws his own focus - his active awareness - from the Divine presence inorder to fulfill the Divine mandate of vehalachta vid’rachav - immitateoDei - of fueling, sustaining and enabling the other.
Of course, acts ofloving-kindness are mitzvos bayn adam lachavayro, andconstitute crucial aspects of avodas Hashem - the service of God. In contrastto adam-lamakom mitzvos, however, they do notconstitute acts of kabbalas p’nei hashechina receivingthe Divine Presence". God's PRESENCE is absent -or at least significantlyreduced - from the awareness of the person involved in an interpersonalmitzvah. In such situations - moments of enablement and loving kindness - webecome Hashem's agents. We act on His behalf and in His proxy, facing theone who needs us, and concentrating exclusively on his needs.
Two halachicramifications of the foregoing analysis come to mind.
[1]This concept ofthe ish ha'chesed becoming God’s agent or“proxy” may serve to explain why the Halacha never ordains that we recitemitzvah-blessings over interpersonal mitzvos. A mitzvah-blessing serves toinvoke the heteronomous reality of submission or surrender to the commandingand/or beckoning will of our Creator. Interpersonal mitzvos, in contrast,demand an autonomous, inner-directed desire on the part of the benefactor inorder to be ultimately effective. Empathy is the necessary - if not alwayssufficient - element in the process of providing the person in crisiswith relief and healing. The latter must perceive inner-directedcaring on the part of his beneficiary.
[2]The foregoinganalysis also may serve to explain Halacha’s exemption of women from time-boundpositive commandments. The paradigmatic act of receiving guests - i.e.,bringing succor to those in distress - is greater than the act of receiving theDivine Presence. This certainly implies that the nurturing of human beingstrumps serving Hashem directly through time-bound observances.
In sum: The term“loving” in the word “loving-kindness” evokes the benefactor's love for thebeneficiary - not his love of God.* The recipient of a kind gestureneeds to feel that the person’s kindness was motivated by love and concern forhim, by empathy with his plight. The beneficiary will not be consoled if heperceives that his benefactor is motivated solely - or even primarily - by hislove for God and his desire to serve Him. In the latter instance, the sufferingbeneficiary becomes nothing more than a "mitzvah-opportunity" - a"spiritual-growth-opportunity - for the benefactor. An "opportunity",by definition, is a positive, fortuitous phenomenon, generating enthusiasm.Such an attitude will tragically result in increasing the suffering person'ssense of cosmic abandonment.
Imoanochi ba’tzarah - empathy is the ultimate healer.
[Note: A powerfulcontrast to the foregoing approach to interpersonal caring - an approachwhich, tragically, has had significant impact upon Western sensibilitiesthroughout the last millennium - is manifest in the (pseudo-epigraphic) Lettersof Abelard and Heloise. In his letters, Abelard insists that theonly legitimate love is the love for God. To love a human - with theologicalappropriateness - is to love only the Divine presence (He uses anotherterm!) which resides within that person. To prioritize concern for thesuffering individual, and to treasure him for his uniqueness - and therefore tofeel the absolute, irreplaceable value of every human being - at the expense offeeling love for God, is for Abelard a heresy. I hope I have demonstrated thatChazal felt totally otherwise.]
(This is not to denythat his love for the beneficiary may well be a function of his love of God -but that concept requires a separate essay.)