VAYERA I: EPIPHANIES DIVINE AND HUMAN
"The act of receiving guests is greater than the act of receiving the Divine Presence" [Tractate Shabbos 127a]
גדולה הכנסת אורחים מקבלת פני השכינה
The Talmud articulates this 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 the parasha, when the guests appeared at a distance, Avraham had been receiving the Divine Presence. God - in an act of anthropomorphic chesed-modelling - had been visiting him in fulfillment of the mitzvah of visiting the sick, i.e., in order to assuage his pain on the third day following his circumcision. God had deliberately caused a heat-wave in the area in order to spare Avraham the difficulty of receiving and serving wayfarers during his recuperation. Avraham, however, was frustrated by this situation; he viewed the absence of potential guests not as a relief but as a deprivation, a removal of opportunities to actualize his “loving-kindness agenda.” Avraham postulated that the receiving of guests took priority over the receiving of God’s presence, and the Rabbis embraced that prioritization as a principle for humanity.
"Ascribe [the quality of] loving-kindness to Avraham [titen...chesed l'Avraham. Micha 7:20]." In this context, we should view Avraham’s “act of receiving guests” as a paradigm for acts of loving-kindness.
The specific Aggadic image of Avraham's frustration at the absence of people to serve reinforces and intensifies the "plain meaning" [peshat] of the Biblical narrative, which elaborates Avraham's alacrity - reflecting his passionate, proactive desire to feed or to "fuel" the "other". We should also make note Avraham's taking care to avoid manipulation of the guests, or even peering into their private agendas: ואחר - תעבורו"" – “After you are sated, be on your way.”
The aforementioned dictum, "The act of receiving guests is greater than the act of receiving the Divine Presence," clearly indicates that acts of loving-kindness require a temporary sense of distancing or separating from God. This separation is because chesed requires us to act as God's proxy - on His behalf - instead of relating to God by communicating (or communing) directly with Him. Avraham prefers to relate to God by embracing the role of His agent- of becoming a provider and enabler of the other, in God’s stead.
Rashi’s midrashic comment to Genesis 6:9 s.v. es haElokim, which contrasts Avraham with Noach, reinforces this concept. The comment notes that, whereas the Torah depicts Noach as walking “with God” it quotes Avraham as referring to “God before Whom [or, in Whose Presence] I have walked…”:
"Noach required [Hashem's] help to support him [in his righteousness], but Avraham, in contrast, was able to strengthen himself and walk independently, due to his righteousness" [mischazek umis'halech b'tzidko ma'aylav].
This concept - of distancing from the Divine when engaging in chesed - should be understood as a phenomenological experience of the benefactor's inner world, and not as an ontological reality. The concept does not imply that acts of loving-kindness constitute a dismissal of God from the scene. To follow Avraham’s model as it appears 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 priority of absenting himself from the Divine presence - in order to fulfill his inner-directed mandate of fueling, of enabling other human beings. God remains present, waiting patiently, and eventually continues the visit by communicating with Avraham after the travelers leave.
Even as Avraham distances himself from God, therefore, God remains with him in two ways:
[1] as a source of value, a paradigm for Avraham’s forthcoming act of chesed through hospitality; and
[2] and even as a Shechina, a Divine presence - waiting for Avraham, as it were, on the sidelines.
Avraham, however, withdraws his own focus - his active awareness - from the Divine presence in order to fulfill the Divine mandate of vehalachta vid’rachav - immitateo Dei - of fueling, sustaining and enabling the other.
Of course, acts of loving-kindness are mitzvos bayn adam lachavayro, and constitute crucial aspects of avodas Hashem - the service of God. In contrast to adam-lamakom mitzvos, however, they do not constitute acts of kabbalas p’nei hashechina receiving the Divine Presence". God's PRESENCE is absent -or at least significantly reduced - from the awareness of the person involved in an interpersonal mitzvah. In such situations - moments of enablement and loving kindness - we become Hashem's agents. We act on His behalf and in His proxy, facing the one who needs us, and concentrating exclusively on his needs.
Two halachic ramifications of the foregoing analysis come to mind.
[1]This concept of the ish ha'chesed becoming God’s agent or “proxy” may serve to explain why the Halacha never ordains that we recite mitzvah-blessings over interpersonal mitzvos. A mitzvah-blessing serves to invoke the heteronomous reality of submission or surrender to the commanding and/or beckoning will of our Creator. Interpersonal mitzvos, in contrast, demand an autonomous, inner-directed desire on the part of the benefactor in order to be ultimately effective. Empathy is the necessary - if not always sufficient - element in the process of providing the person in crisis with relief and healing. The latter must perceive inner-directed caring on the part of his beneficiary.
[2]The foregoing analysis also may serve to explain Halacha’s exemption of women from time-bound positive commandments. The paradigmatic act of receiving guests - i.e., bringing succor to those in distress - is greater than the act of receiving the Divine Presence. This certainly implies that the nurturing of human beings trumps serving Hashem directly through time-bound observances.
In sum: The term “loving” in the word “loving-kindness” evokes the benefactor's love for the beneficiary - not his love of God.* The recipient of a kind gesture needs to feel that the person’s kindness was motivated by love and concern for him, by empathy with his plight. The beneficiary will not be consoled if he perceives that his benefactor is motivated solely - or even primarily - by his love for God and his desire to serve Him. In the latter instance, the suffering beneficiary 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's sense of cosmic abandonment.
Imo anochi ba’tzarah - empathy is the ultimate healer.
[Note: A powerful contrast to the foregoing approach to interpersonal caring - an approach which, tragically, has had significant impact upon Western sensibilities throughout the last millennium - is manifest in the (pseudo-epigraphic) Letters of Abelard and Heloise. In his letters, Abelard insists that the only legitimate love is the love for God. To love a human - with theological appropriateness - is to love only the Divine presence (He uses another term!) which resides within that person. To prioritize concern for the suffering individual, and to treasure him for his uniqueness - and therefore to feel the absolute, irreplaceable value of every human being - at the expense of feeling love for God, is for Abelard a heresy. I hope I have demonstrated that Chazal felt totally otherwise.]
(This is not to deny that his love for the beneficiary may well be a function of his love of God - but that concept requires a separate essay.)