1

Based on this answer, there is plenty of evidence that malachim can be human. There is a widespread opinion that the 3 visitors who came to Avraham were malachim. Are there any opinions who agree that they were malachim, but say that some or all of them were human malachim, rather than the supernatural type? ie. that they were normal human beings who Hashem was using as agents of His will (whether or not they were aware of that)?

Moses Supposes
  • 3,024
  • 11
  • 19
  • I'm not sure I understand - the sources say they resembled regular humans? – Dov Nov 07 '23 at 21:39
  • @Dov I've edited to try to clarify - does that make more sense? – Moses Supposes Nov 07 '23 at 21:44
  • I don't mean opinions who say that they weren't malachim at all - can you clarify what that means? – shmosel Nov 07 '23 at 21:50
  • @shmosel Isn't the pshat that they were just men? – Moses Supposes Nov 07 '23 at 21:53
  • No. In any case, what's the distinction you're making between "just men" and "human malachim"? – shmosel Nov 07 '23 at 21:56
  • @shmosel I've just reread the pesukim and I can't see anywhere where it says that they were malachim? Maybe it is an artificial distinction but I've edited again to try to clarify - that they were human beings who Hashem was using as malachim rather than random humans who happened to be there of their own free will. Arguably they wouldn't have been there if Hashem didn't want them to be, so perhaps there is no real difference? – Moses Supposes Nov 07 '23 at 22:01
  • @MosesSupposes - it doesn't say outright they were angels because they appeared as men... – Dov Nov 07 '23 at 22:05
  • Why would random humans be speaking for Hashem? Obviously they were emissaries of some sort. – shmosel Nov 07 '23 at 22:09
  • @MosesSupposes It's fairly clear from the pesukim alone that Avraham's guests were not ordinary people - they prophesy to Avraham and then go and do supernatural things in Sodom (where they are explicitly called malachim). Only question is whether they were angels or prophets – AKA Nov 07 '23 at 23:17
  • @shmosel Not sure that is so obvious from the pesukim - Sarah certainly seems to think that the idea that she would have a baby was ridiculous and nothing else really spells it out – Moses Supposes Nov 08 '23 at 09:30
  • @AKA The pesukim don't actually say that the 2 malachim were 2 of the 3 men who visited Avraham - we commonly assume that, but there may be opinions that they weren't? – Moses Supposes Nov 08 '23 at 09:31
  • @Dov but is that universally agreed by all opinions? – Moses Supposes Nov 08 '23 at 09:32
  • As @shmosel says - these were G-d-given tasks, so it is very hard to say otherwise. Shmosel has brought opinions that say they were prophets which would tally with the messages they were told to give over. But, like he concludes, the overwhelming opinion is that they were indeed malochim, especially when they are identified as Gavriel, Michoel and Rafael and the relevant jobs they each had relates to their "specialist" tafkidim. – Dov Nov 08 '23 at 10:15
  • @dov That's all based on the interpretation which is the most popular one today, but the pesukim don't spell that out. I often feel like these days we've lost a lot of the rich discussion of the Torah that there was in previous generations and the simplified primary school stories are the ones that most people take as being the only correct one. There have been quite a few times that I've looked at pesukim and been surprised to not find something that actually comes from eg. midrashim or Rashi, so I like to try to break out of the assumptions and look for the less well known opinions. – Moses Supposes Nov 08 '23 at 10:51
  • But the less well know opinions don't necessarily mean they are the right ones? – Dov Nov 08 '23 at 11:38
  • @Dov no, but in some cases there is no definitive answer, in some cases the other opinions have value even if they are wrong, for some people there may be something in a minority opinion which resonates for them personally, in some cases maybe the less well known opinions could be correct, and I'd suggest that taking a step back and looking at the assumptions we make about the Torah and how we can interpret it differently within the framework of halacha helps keep it fresh and interesting, and also helps us respect other people's differing opinions and different hashkafas today. – Moses Supposes Nov 08 '23 at 12:06
  • @Dov just to clarify, I think that the most popular one is probably the most likely in this situation - as shmosel's answer has pointed out, but I think that the exercise of analysing it and not taking that for granted is important. The gemarah certainly does plenty of that sort of thing, and I think we should too! – Moses Supposes Nov 08 '23 at 12:08
  • @MosesSupposes Here it's pretty clear as pshat that the malachim of Sodom (with a definite article used) were the guests described as "going to Sodom" (hence the move by the Rambam to make the guests a vision rather than just saying they were people) – AKA Nov 08 '23 at 17:25
  • @AKA not really when they hadn't been described as malachim up to that point? – Moses Supposes Nov 08 '23 at 18:21
  • Which the commentators deal with. But everyone agrees they were the guests previously described as going to Sodom (otherwise what's that about) – AKA Nov 08 '23 at 19:23
  • @AKA do they? I've never heard any different, but I don't want to assume that! The posuk says that the visitors "looked towards Sodom", not that they were going to Sodom. – Moses Supposes Nov 08 '23 at 20:30
  • @MosesSupposes pasuk 22 וַיִּפְנ֤וּ מִשָּׁם֙ הָֽאֲנָשִׁ֔ים וַיֵּלְכ֖וּ סְדֹ֑מָה. My point is there's a reason why even the pshat-oriented commentators agree that the guests were in some way supernatural – AKA Nov 08 '23 at 21:24
  • @AKA Sorry, I missed that - good point, and the implication seems to be that 2 of them are the malachim who turn up in Sodom, but I do think there is possibly still some wiggle room for other interpretations – Moses Supposes Nov 09 '23 at 17:18
  • 1
    @MosesSupposes yup - I had to double check myself. And yes, in general it's very good to analyse which bits of our childhood teachings are midrashic - just here it seems even the "rodfei hapshat" assume the guests are supernatural. – AKA Nov 09 '23 at 21:04

2 Answers2

2

The Ralbag says they were prophets sent by Hashem. Ibn Ezra brings a similar interpretation. The Abarbanel has a lengthy analysis of the competing interpretations, raising a number of difficulties with each, concluding that the common view that they were angels is the more plausible one.

shmosel
  • 3,589
  • 13
  • 20
0

See Bereishis Rabbah 50:2

אָמַר רַבִּי תַּנְחוּמָא אָמַר רַבִּי לֵוִי אַבְרָהָם שֶׁהָיָה כֹּחוֹ יָפֶה נִדְמוּ לוֹ בִּדְמוּת אֲנָשִׁים, אֲבָל לוֹט עַל יְדֵי שֶׁהָיָה כֹּחוֹ רַע נִדְמוּ לוֹ בִּדְמוּת מַלְאָכִים

Rabbi Tancḥuma said that Rabbi Levi said: To Avraham, whose power was great, they appeared in the image of men; to Lot, whose strength was inferior, they appeared in the image of angels.

The Eitz Yosef there explains this to mean that Avraham was accustomed to seeing angels, and so they appeared to him as men, yet with Lot who was not used to seeing angels, they appeared as angels.

Similarly refer to the Mechilta and Sifrei Eikev 38 who say that he thought them to be Arabs.

Dov
  • 32,729
  • 3
  • 27
  • 85
  • Thanks, but this seems to be an opinion that they were the supernatural type of malachim who just appeared as humans, but I was asking whether anyone says that they were just normal humans who were sent on a mission by Hashem (whether knowingly or not)? – Moses Supposes Nov 07 '23 at 21:56