In its primary signification the Hebrew ʻabar, “to pass,” refers to the
motion of a body in space, and is chiefly applied to living creatures
moving at some distance in a straight line, e.g., “And He passed over
(ʻabar) before them” (Gen. xxxiii. 3); “Pass (ʻabor) before the people”
(Exod. xvii. 5). Instances of this kind are numerous. The verb was next
applied to the passage of sound through air, as “And they caused a
sound to pass (va-yaʻabiru) throughout the camp” (Exod. xxxvi. 6);
“That I hear the Lord’s people spreading the report” (maʻabirim) (1
Sam. ii. 24).
Figuratively it denoted the appearance of the Light and the Divine
Presence (Shechinah) which the prophets perceived in their prophetic
visions, as it is said, “And behold a smoking furnace, and a burning
lamp that passed (ʻabar) between those pieces” (Gen. xv. 17). This took
place in a prophetic vision, for the narrative commences, “And a deep
sleep fell upon Abram.” The verb has this latter meaning in Exodus xii.
12, “And I shall pass (ve-ʻabarti) through the land of Egypt” (denoting
“I shall reveal myself,” etc.), and in all similar phrases.
The verb is next employed to express that a person has gone too far,
and transgressed the usual limit, in the performance of some act, as
“And as a man who is drinking wine has passed (ʻabarv) the proper
limit” (Jer. xxiii. 9).
It is also used figuratively to denote: to abandon one aim, and turn to
a different aim and object, e.g., “He shot an arrow, causing it to miss
the aim (lehaʻabiro)” (1 Sam. xx. 36). This is the sense, it appears to
me, of this verb in “And the Lord passed by (va-yaʻabor) before his
face” (Exod. xxxiv. 6). I take “his face” to mean “the face of God”;
our Teachers likewise interpreted “his face” as being identical with
“the face of God.” And, although this is found in the midst of Agadic
interpretations which would be out of place in this our work, yet it is
some support of our view, that the pronoun “his” is employed in this
passage as a substitute for “God’s”—and the whole passage could in my
opinion be explained as follows: Moses sought to attain to a certain
perception which is called “the perception of the Divine face,” a term
occurring in the phrase “My face cannot be seen”; but God vouchsafed to
him a perception of a lower degree, viz., the one called, “the seeing
of the back,” in the words, “And thou shalt see my back” (Exod. xxxiii.
23). We have mentioned this subject in our work Mishneh Torah.
Accordingly, it is stated in the above-mentioned passage that the Lord
withheld from Moses that perception which is termed “the seeing of the
Divine face,” and substituted for it another gift, viz., the knowledge
of the acts attributed to God, which, as I shall explain (chap. liv.)
are considered to be different and separate attributes of the Supreme.
In asserting that God withheld from Moses (the higher knowledge) I mean
to say that this knowledge was unattainable, that by its nature it was
inaccessible to Moses; for man, whilst able to gain perfection by
applying his reasoning faculties to the attainment of what is within
the reach of his intellect, either weakens his reason or loses it
altogether as soon as he ventures to seek a higher degree of
knowledge—as I shall elucidate in one of the chapters of this
work—unless he be granted a special aid from heaven, as is described in
the words, “And I will cover thee with my hand until I pass by” (Exod.
xxxiii. 23).
Onkelos, in translating this verse, adopts the same method which he
applies to the explanation of similar passages, viz., every expression
implying corporeality or corporal properties, when referring to God, he
explains by assuming an ellipsis of a nomen regens before “God,” thus
connecting the expression (of corporeality) with another word which is
supplied, and which governs the genitive “God”; e.g., “And behold the
Lord stood upon it” (Gen. xxviii. 13), he explains, “The glory of the
Lord stood arrayed above it.” Again, “The Lord watch between me and
thee” (Gen. xxxi. 49), he paraphrases, “The word of the Lord shall
watch.” This is his ordinary method in explaining Scripture. He applies
it also to Exod. xxxiv. 6, which he paraphrases, “The Lord caused his
Presence to pass before his face and called.” According to this
rendering the thing which passed was unquestionably some physical
object, the pronoun “his” refers to Moses, and the phrase ʻal panav is
identical with lefanav, “before him.” Comp. “So went the present over
before him” (ʻal panav) (Gen. xxxii, 22). This is likewise an
appropriate and satisfactory explanation; and I can adduce still
further support for the opinion of Onkelos from the words “while my
glory passeth by” (ba-ʻabor) (Exod. xxxiii. 22), which expressly state
that the passing object was something ascribed to God, not God Himself;
and of this Divine glory it is also said, “until I pass by,” and “And
the Lord passed by before him.”
Should it, however, be considered necessary to assume here an ellipsis,
according to the method of Onkelos, who supplies in some instances the
term “the Glory,” in others “the Word,” and in others “the Divine
Presence,” as the context may require in each particular case, we may
also supply here the word “voice,” and explain the passage, “And a
voice from the Lord passed before him and called.” We have already
shown that the verb ʻabar, “he passed,” can be applied to the voice, as
in “And they caused a voice to pass through the camp” (Exod. xxxvi. 6).
According to this explanation, it was the voice which called. No
objection can be raised to applying the verb kara (he called) to kol
(voice), for a similar phrase occurs in the Bible in reference to God’s
commands to Moses, “He heard the voice speaking unto him”; and, in the
same manner as it can be said “the voice spoke,” we may also say “the
voice called”; indeed, we can even support this application of the
verbs “to say,” and “to call,” to “the voice,” by parallel passages, as
“A voice saith ‘Cry,’ and it says ‘What shall I cry?’” (Isa. xl. 6).
According to this view, the meaning of the passage under discussion
would be: “A voice of God passed before him and called, ‘Eternal,
Eternal, All-powerful, All-merciful, and All-gracious!’” (The word
Eternal is repeated; it is in the vocative, for the Eternal is the one
who is called. Comp. Moses, Moses! Abraham, Abraham!) This, again, is a
very appropriate explanation of the text.
You will surely not find it strange that this subject, so profound and
difficult, should bear various interpretations; for it will not impair
the force of the argument with which we are here concerned. Either
explanation may be adopted; you may take that grand scene altogether as
a prophetic vision, and the whole occurrence as a mental operation, and
consider that what Moses sought, what was withheld from him, and what
he attained, were things perceived by the intellect without the use of
the senses (as we have explained above): or you may assume that in
addition there was a certain ocular perception of a material object,
the sight of which would assist intellectual perception. The latter is
the view of Onkelos, unless he assumes that in this instance the ocular
perception was likewise a prophetic vision, as was the case with “a
smoking furnace and a burning lamp that passed between those pieces”
(Gen. xv. 17), mentioned in the history of Abraham. You may also assume
that in addition there was a perception of sound, and that there was a
voice which passed before him, and was undoubtedly something material.
You may choose either of these opinions, for our sole intention and
purpose is to guard you against the belief that the phrase “and the
Lord passed,” is analogous to “pass before the people” (Exod. xvii. 5),
for God, being incorporeal, cannot be said to move, and consequently
the verb “to pass” cannot with propriety be applied to Him in its
primary signification.