Humility in High Places: Angels in אז באין כל ’Az be-’En Kol

אז באין כל ’Az be-’En Kol is a picture window that opens up onto an ocean of ancient exegesis. The process of identification of the background of its affirmations is an intellectual adventure. Phrase after phrase of piyyut in general and this piyyut in particular go back to the biblical corpus. Continuities and transformations are all worth noting.

The description of angels in the piyyut is fascinating. Its onset deserves to be read against the background of two passages, one in Hebrew and one in Greek:

זִבְחֵי אֱלֹהִים

רוּחַ נִשְׁבָּרָה

 

לֵב־נִשְׁבָּר וְנִדְכֶּה אֱלֹהִים

לֹא תִבְזֶה

Psalm 51:19:

God’s sacrifices:

            a broken spirit;

a broken, crushed heart, O God,

            you do not despise.

 

Matthew 5:3:

μακάριοι οἱ πτωχοὶ τῷ πνεύματι

ὅτι αὐτῶν ἐστιν ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν

Blessed are the poor in spirit,

            for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Here is the opening strophe of the piyyut’s description of angels. The fright-seized ones is a poetic substitute for “angels”:

אחוזי אימה

הם לבד ישמשוך

כי בלב דכא

ובשפל רוח תמצא

(5) The fright-seized ones,

they alone can serve as your acolytes,

for with the crushed heart

and the abject spirit you are found.

אֲחוּזֵי אֵימָה

הֵם לְבַד יְשַׁמְּשׁוּךָ

כִּי בְּלֵב דַּכָּא

וּבִשְׁפַל רוּחַ תִּמָּצֵא

המלאכים= אחוזי אימה

The description of angels continues from there. Selected strophes:

אב אין למו

אם לא ילדתם

הורתם אש

ויולדם שלג

(6) They have no father,

a mother did not bear them.

Fire was their conceptrix,

snow their progenitor.

אָב אֵין לָמוֹ

אֵם לֹא יְלָדָתָם

הוֹרָתָם אֵשׁ

וְיוֹלְדָם שֶׁלֶג

S&Y translate: they were conceived from fire, and they were born of the snow.

אראלים חצבתה

מלהבות אש

וחוללתה חיות

מנהר מרכבת

(7) You hewed Erelim

from flames of fire,

you gave birth to the Creatures

from the River of the Chariot.

אֶרְאֵלִּים חָצַבְתָּה

מִלַּהֲבוֹת אֵשׁ

וְחוֹלַלְתָּה חַיּוֹת

מִנְּהַר מֶרְכֶּבֶת

S&Y vocalize מִרְכֶּבֶת

אפודים פחד

אזורים יראה

חגורים קסת

ומתנים אנוחים

(8) They are ephoded in fear,

girded in awe,

strapped with a writing case;

their loins sigh.

אֲפוּדִים פַּחַד

אֲזוּרִים יִרְאָה

חֲגוּרִים קֶסֶת

וּמָתְנַיִם אֲנוּחִים

 

אמן מלאכתם

ברוך עבודתם

צדק הגיתם

קדוש קריאתם

(11) Amen! is their service,

Blessed! their liturgy,

Just! their declamation,

Holy! their proclamation.

אָמֵן מְלָאכְתָּם

בָּרוּךְ עֲבוֹדָתָם

צֶדֶק הֲגִיָּתָם

קָדוֹשׁ קְרִיאָתָם

 

The angels are orphans by nature (though they are elsewhere called ‘sons of God’), their substance, fire and snow. The metaphysic is ice-cold and red-hot. No cuddly cherubs here. The phraseology goes back to such passages as Ps 148:8; 29:7; Isa 33:7; Deut 32:18; Ezek 1; Dan 7:10; Ezek 9:2; Isa 6; Ezek 3:12; and numerous psalms for strophe (11). Swartz and Yahalom cite a number of these sources already. For the rest, it is clear that the piyyut depends on a developed angelology with roots in the Bible but a deep extension in extra-biblical tradition. No River of the Chariot in scripture, for example, but 3 Enoch 50 and 916, a Hekhalot composition, is cited by S&Y.

The image of a scribing angel clothed in awe and reverence, a writing case around the waist, and loins that sigh, may have roots in a model image of a royal scribe, or perhaps nearer at hand, the ideal scribe of (for example) Matthew 15:32, who possesses treasures new and old.

This series is dedicated to Mandy Park (and she knows why). Along with Calvin, she put up with me for a few days while we attended SBL in Boston. I enjoyed meeting the Penners and Douglas Stuart at Gordon-Conwell through them. Gordon-Conwell has a strong program in Hebrew and Semitic Studies. There are very few places in the world where one can read Ugaritic, Syriac, and Targumic Aramaic at the masters degree level with qualified scholars. Gordon-Conwell is one of them. Calvin and Mandy’s great blog is named The Floppy Hat. Their friends include two other peerless bloggers, Adam Couturier and Art Boulet. The circle widens to include Daniel Rodriguez and Tonya Hall (their cool blog  is here). We were all impressed by Karyn Traphagen’s NAPH paper presented in Boston (her fine blog is here).

Mark my words. A new generation of scholars, fearless but also שפל רוח, is coming up the ranks.

Bibliography

Michael D. Swartz and Joseph Yahalom, Avodah: An Anthology of Ancient Poetry for Yom Kippur, Penn State Library of Jewish Studies; University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2005

Comments

[Jared]

The image of the scribe just after the chariot could not help but remind me of Metatron (again, a reference to 3 Enoch).

[John Hobbins]

But what we do otherwise know about the River of the Chariot? The item is unfamiliar to me.

[Jared]

If the chariot is somehow a transposition, reinterpretation of God's throne, which is quite common in the Hekhalot texts, but can be found as early as the "Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice" (which speaks of a cise-merkavah), I would think that this refers to the river that comes from beneath the temple and ultimately God as a source of the river (which is a river of living water). All of this so far can be found in Jer. 2:13, 17:12-13 (cf. Is. 44:3; 55:1); Zech. 14:8; but most especially Ez. 47:1-12.

In turn, take a look at Rev. 22:1-2, which relies upon Ezekiel and Zechariah as well: “Then he showed me the river of the water of life, bright as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb through the middle of the street of the city; also, on either side of the river, the tree of life with its twelve kinds of fruit, yielding its fruit each month; and the leaves of the tree for the healing of the nations” (RSV).

The Chariot, by this time equated with God's Throne, has become the place from which the river of living water flows forth (originally the source being God within the Temple--so not really that big of a step). This also might make sense of why these creatures come forth from the river--it is a river of life-giving waters.

[David E. S. Stein]

Re: angels as composed of fire and snow

Such imagery probably alludes to a classic rabbinic midrash on a verse from Job:

“Awesome dominion is God’s, who makes harmony on high” (Job 25:2). [How so? How does making “harmony on high” manifest God’s dominion?] Resh Laqish [nickname of Rabbi Simon ben Laqish] said: “[The angel] Michael is wholly snow, while [the angel] Gabriel is wholly fire; they stand side by side but do not harm each other.”

—Midrash Sifré § 12 to Deuteronomy 20:10 (Land of Israel, ca. 400 C.E.)

My own comment: It is indeed wondrous that snow (which falls from clouds) and fire (that is, the sun, stars, lightning) appear to co-exist in the same place, namely, the sky.

[John Hobbins]

Jared,

Fragments 20-21-22 of 4Q405 are indeed deep background to this piyyut, as are your other references. That's the key, the chariot-throne combination, which for some reason I associate with the wheels on wheels in Ezekiel but also Santa's sleigh.

David,

The wonder and awe evoked by natural phenomena is a presupposition of traditional Jewish metaphysics, not its substance. Psalms 103, 104, 148 (off the top of my head) point to a confession, at times counterfactual, that all physical forces are at God's beck and call. From there the language of personhood is deemed by tradition to penetrate this reality and describe with greater precision than available alternatives. It seems to me that such is still the case.

From another point of view, the angelology developed in this piyyut and elsewhere absorbs the pantheism, animism, and nature spirituality known around the world in non-monotheistic settings, and conforms it to a monotheistic framework. A magnificent achievement, capable of positive developments along the lines of re-enchantment as opposed to dis-enchantment of the physical world.

Perhaps you might agree that modern theology has to do two things at once, demythologize and remythologize. Better yet, as Ricoeur stressed, we need to approach the texts with a "second naivete'."

[David E. S. Stein]

John wrote: Perhaps you might agree that . . . as Ricoeur stressed, we need to approach the texts with a "second naivete'."

Yes, agreed. (And it’s more fun that way.)