Divine Encounters in the Torah: Rambam vs. Ramban

Various encounters with God and with ‘angels’ are recorded in the Torah.
The most authoritative voice of Jewish Traditional philosophical beliefs has been that of Maimonides (Rambam), whose views have reigned for the last eight hundred years. According to Rambam, all the Divine communications received by the prophets of the Bible, and all their encounters with God and angels occurred during a Divinely induced vision or dream - except for the case of Moses. Moses is the only prophet who could actually ‘speak directly’ to God.
This is not to say that the record of the visions are allegories, but rather they are descriptions of actual visions divinely induced by God into the minds of the prohets.
............
Aside: Maimonides' view regarding allegory:
Seven hundred years before Darwin, Maimonides wrote:
“..the account given in Scripture of the creation is not, as is generally believed, intended to be in all its parts literal.” “The literal meaning of the words might lead us to conceive corrupt ideas and to form false opinions about God, or even to entirely abandon and reject the principles of our Faith.”
He states categorically that according to Tradition, the Garden of Eden account is allegorical. Of course that they are meant allegorically does not mean that they are trivial stories, or “untrue”. R. Crescas, in his commentary on Rambam’s statement that the creation account is at least partially allegory, states:
“ Allegories....means that the mention in Scripture of the Garden of Eden, the Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowledge, the description of Adam, his initial condition and what he later became, the serpent, Eve, the naming of Adam’s sons Cain and Abel, and all that long narrative, all refer to extremely deep matters which are inaccessible to the common run of humanity and were therefore given in the form of allegory.”   .
.............................
Prophetic Encounters and their Concomitant Events
To say that Moshe saw events not in a vision does not necessarily mean that he perceived events which were occurring in the outside universe - it may be that his special higher level of prophecy was that he perceived events while awake rather than while in a vision trance, but that the events which he perceived were not themselves actual physical events in the outside world.
For example, since God is not physical , God has no ‘voice’. Since God is not physical, God is not located anywhere, and therefore, a ‘voice from God’ cannot be said to necessarily originate from a unique location. Therefore we imagine that ‘and God spoke to Moshe’ may mean something like “and God caused Moshe’s mind to sense the following words”, rather than necessarily meaning “a sound wave of vibrating air molecules proceeded from God’s mouth to Moshe’s ear”.

In addition, using the ordinary definitions of the word, a bush cannot be on fire and yet not be consumed, since the fire is is itself energy released via the consumption of the material of the bush. One would instead probably interpret Moshe’s seeing a burning bush as meaning “God caused Moshe to perceive a burning bush which was not consumed”, or  “God caused Moshe to see a real bush, and to perceive it as though it were burning yet not consumed”....or etc.

It is possible to conclude that even within the Rambam’s approach, even with Moshe events such as the burning bush occurred in a vision, whereas the dialogue with God occurred while he was fully awake. Furthermore, even if prophetic events such as the burning bush were perceived by Moshe when fully awake, this does not mean that they occurred in the physical universe. Rather, they could just as well have been mental events experienced by Moshe while in a fully awakened state. That is, Moshe perceived the bush to be on fire, and actually physically walked over to it, and actually physically removed his shoes, and actually physically spoke the words recorded in the Torah. However, perhaps the sight of the burning bush was present in his mind only - another person in the vicinity would not have noticed it [unless God specifically placed that ‘view’ into their mind]. Similarly, God’s voice sounded in Moshe’s mind, but would not have been heard by anyone else.

Thus a person observing the entire event would not see any non-natural event. They would see only Moshe’s responses to the Divine, not the Divine itself. [Just as Bil’am did not see the angel which his donkey saw and perhaps thought his donkey had gone mad, those watching Moshe  would  probably consider his actions to be an indication of insanity.][Bil’am’s seeing the donkey swerve for no reason, and hitting and cursing it, may also have been part of his vision. Or, the hitting and cursing could have been real......etc.] Indeed, the Torah tells us “And God saw that he [Moshe] had turned to see [the burning bush]” as though this in itself were a test, implying that ordinary people would not have noticed anything unusual.

Physics, Visions, and Angels

When we see an entity, it is because photons (light) are emitted by that entity, or bounce off the entity - actually, are absorbed and then emitted by the entity - and then these photons enter our eye, and stimulate an electrical signal to our brain. An entity which is not physical to the extent that it can bounce or emit photons cannot be physically seen.
Of course it may be possible for an image to form in our brains which appears to us as though it is in the external world. For example when we sleep, or if our brains are stimulated by electrodes. If the mind is a non-physical entity affiliated with the brain, images can form in it perhaps without any physical stimulus.

An angel is, according to one interpretation, a messenger of God; according to Rambam’s interpretation it is not necessarily a being, but can be e.g. a law of nature created by God, which is now carrying out God’s purpose;  an angel can also be a non-physical being, and therefore presumably if an angel existed, it would not exist in a physical sense. According to these interpretations, it would not have physical meaning to state that the angel walked somewhere or picked up something, or said something, since all these imply a physical structure existing in spacetime. Similarly, the angel if it were not physical - could not be said to emit or bounce off photons, and therefore it could not be said with physical meaning that the angel could be ‘seen’. And, since it cannot be seen or measured or felt by any physical means, it would perhaps be meaningless to say that the angel was there - in any physical sense of ‘being’  - but simply could not be seen.

Therefore if someone were to ‘see’ an angel, it would presumably be due to an image which was formed directly in their minds by some spiritual agency, rather than by physical means. This would mean that the person would see the angel, but this vision of the angel would be an internal reality, and would not correspond to a physical entity outside the viewer - there would not be an angel ‘out there’.  

Of course it would be possible for God to create a physical being and send it to someone, who would then see it. This however would be a physical being and not an angel, if an angel is defined to be a spiritual being. If however ‘angel’  means simply ‘messenger of God’, then it would be possible to see physical angels of course.

Visions and Physical Transformations: Ramban vs Rambam (Nahmanides vs Maimonides)

Nahmanides (Ramban, with an n at the end) disputed part of the views of Maimonides (Rambam, with an m at the end). He agreed with Rambam that all those who are recorded in the Torah as having seen angels, actually beheld these angels in a (divinely induced) dream or a vision, even where it is not stated that this is the case. However, he disagreed with Rambam’s more radical statement that all the events related in that context occurred in the (divinely induced) dream or vision.
The entire episode of the speaking of Balaam’s donkey was a vision according to Rambam. Even when the Torah records long dialogues, and seemingly physical events occur, when they are within the context of a prophetic encounter they refer to mental events in the mind of the prophet. Ramban disputed this heatedly.

Rambam also states that Ya’akov[Jacob]’s wrestling with the mysterious stranger - the angel - occurred in a prophetic vision or dream. This despite the fact that Ya’akov had a limp after the angel damaged his ‘nasheh’ sinew during the struggle. Thus a Biblical narrative in which an event occurs, and then seems to have an effect later, may nevertheless refer to a mental event.
He states further that even angels seen by two people at the same time - as with Manoakh and his wife, parents of Samson - were seen in a dream/vision by both simultaneously.
Rambam wrote that all those who heard God or angels speaking to them, or ‘saw’ God or angels, were actually experiencing a Divinely induced vision or dream, in which they ‘heard voices’ or ‘saw angels'’, and that all the events related in that context occured in the dream or vision.

Rambam essentially makes two crucial points. One, that regarding any Biblically recorded prophetic encounter with God or angels other than by Moses, the encounter took place during a dream or vision, regardless of whether or not it is specifically stated that it took place in a dream or vision, and regardless of what physical activity is reported as part of the encounter.
Secondly, that if in any section of the Torah there is a mention of an interaction of man - other than Moses - with God or with an angel, then the entire episode occured in a vision.

Rambam stresses that:
“In some cases the account begins by stating that the prophet saw an angel; in others the account apparently introduces a human being, who ultimately is shown to be an angel; but it makes no difference, for even if the fact that an angel has been heard is  mentioned only at the end, you may rest satisfied that the whole account from the beginning describes a prophetic vision. In such visions, a prophet either sees God who speaks to him, as will be explained by us, or he sees an angel who speaks to him, or he hears someone speaking to him without seeing the speaker, or he sees a man who speaks to him, and learns afterwards that the speaker was an angel.”

Rambam then mentions the cases of Abraham’s three visitors, Jacob’s wrestling with the ‘man’, and Bilaam’s encounter, and some others. He then states:
“The instances quoted may serve as an illustration of those passages which I do not mention.”

We will indeed adapt his idea to examples which he did not mention. We cannot know whether he would have agreed with our position or not, but we feel that our examples will nevertheless be within the guidelines he set.

RAMBAN’S OBJECTIONS
Ramban objected to the thesis of Rambam that all the events surrounding the prophecy occured in a dream or vision, and attempted to bring proofs that it was not so.
The sages in the Talmud had drawn attention to the fact that the Torah distinguishes between the level of prophecy of Moshe and that of all other prophets. They said that while all other prophets saw as ‘through a glass darkly’, Moses (Moshe Rabbenu) saw clearly.  

Rambam stated that the essential difference between the prophecies of Moshe and other prophets was that all of their prophecies, including all the related actions, occured in a vision rather than in actual external physical reality, whereas Ramban stated that this was not so, and that the difference was simply as stated by the Sages - a difference involving clarity. According to Ramban, the levels of prophecy are indicated by the wording relating the encounter, for example the ‘seeing of God’ being of a higher level than the ‘seeing of an angel’.

Ramban poses several questions which he hopes will convince the reader that indeed the events occured in external reality rather than in a vision. We present them below along with possible answers to Ramban’s points.
Genesis 18, where the story of Abraham’s three angelic visitors is told, begins as follows: “And God appeared to him in the plains of Mamre as he sat in the doorway of the tent. And he raised his eyes and saw, and lo three men..”. Rambam states that the words “And God appeared to him..” are a general introduction to the vision of the three “men” which followed.
Ramban asks: if it was a vision of angels rather than of God, why does the Torah say “God appeared to him”. Ramban therefore infers that there was a vision of God, about which we are told nothing other than that it occured, and that following this, three angels in the guise of men appeared to him in external reality. However, Rambam clearly states that the Torah uses the phraseology “God appeared” to describe a certain type of vision - even a vision in which God did not appear. Instead one could say that “God appeared to him” means that God caused this vision of “men” - who were angels - to arise in Abraham’s mind.
Furthermore, in the case of Jacob’s struggle with the angel Ramban would presumeably agree that it was not God who wrestled with Jacob, even though Jacob states afterwards “...for I have seen God face to face..”.

The Irrelevant Details Indicate that it was not a Vision

Ramban also objects that the events related in the story -  the eating, and the baking of cakes, and so on - are superfluous if it was a vision, since the angels were there to merely give a message, and the vision could have been given simply. If on the other hand the events occured as related in external reality, then they describe the normal course of events which would occur upon the arrival of three visitors. Therefore the fact that these events not directly related to the message are included in the story indicate that it was not a vision, which would have included only the message.
We answer as follows: Indeed the message could have been given in a short vision including only the message and no three travelling men who must be offered food and so on. This in fact would seemingly have been preferable also to the complicated business of sending three angels in the guise of men, and having Abraham put in the position of having to offer them hospitality, feeding them and so on.

The issue then is why the long complicated method was preferred rather than a short giving of the messeage - why the giving of the message is long and full of seemingly irrelevant matters rather than a short and to the point vision. Clearly then these events - whether they occured in a vision or in external reality - must have had  a purpose.   
 
The passage stresses that it was during the strongest heat of the day, and it is known that Abraham was subjected to a number of tests by God, so perhaps the events were meant to test Abraham’s hospitality during his recuperation from the circumcision, and in the heat of the Middle Eastern day. Whatever the reason, the events must have had a purpose, and are not irrelevant. Rather, there was a reason that God wished Abraham to be confronted with that situation then, at the time of the giving of the message. And, the simplest manner of arranging a situation which is designed to test certain responses is to stage it as a vision, so that no extraneous matters interfere.

The Actions of Sarah

Ramban also objects that if all was a vision, then the actions which the Torah ascribes to Sarah - preparing cakes and laughing at the prediction of the angels that she would bear a son - were actually not her actions, but occured instead in Abraham’s vision.
However, we can perhaps answer as follows: Some visions are joint ones - as that of Manoakh and his wife, who both saw the same angel. And in the case before us, there are various indications that this was a joint vision of Abraham and Sarah.
Sarah heard the words the angels spoke to Abraham outside even while she was in the tent; she laughed inside herself upon hearing the message of Isaac’s impending birth, and this was immediately known to Abraham, for God asks him why she laughed; and Sarah immediately responded to this message although it was from God to Abraham. These indicate that for at least some part, the vision was a joint one, and therefore Sarah did indeed commit the actions ascribed to her - to the same extent as Abraham commited the actions ascribed to him.

Physical Changes During or Following the Prophetic Encounter

Ramban also states that the limping of Jacob would be inexplicable if the injury was received in a vision.
However, it may of course be that the limping was also in the vision. In any case, a law was given forever to the descendants of Yakov not to eat the ‘nasheh’ sinew of an animal. If the limping was in a  dream, then it is very odd that Yakov’s descendants had to follow a precept based on a dream event.     
On the other hand, the reason for the precept itself is totally incomprehensible - it makes no more human-sense to keep it if the limp was real than if it was in the vision. . If the limping was not in a dream, then how did the dream of a struggle cause him to limp?  

Perhaps the statement in the passage that the limp disappeared when the sun shone can be interpreted as an indication that the limp may have been caused by the mental anguish of the dream-struggle [See also Abarbanel].

Another example of a physical change which seemingly occurred during a dream, or due to events in a dream, relates to King Solomon’s  dream wherein he requests and  is granted wisdom - and awakes to find himself indeed much wiser.

Essentially however, it is clear that in both these cases the physical effect is due to something other than actual physical interaction. It would not be explicable for a touch on Jacob’s thigh to make him limp, especially considering that Jacob was fit enough to wrestle all night long. Similarly, Solomon’s new wisdom was clearly not an ordinary natural physical change.
Therefore it is no more surprising that the physical changes to Jacob and Solomon should occur as the result of a dream or vision than if they were to occur during an actual physical encounter.

Jacob’s Fear and Surprise Upon Awakening

“...for I have seen God face to face and my life is preserved.”  Jacob’s  mention that he was yet alive after his experience imply surprise or thankfulness, as though he had reason to believe that he should have died. Ramban saw this as an indication that the struggle occured in external reality, since a vision of God in any form would not carry any danger - after all his father and grandfather had had such visions and lived. This surprise would therefore seemingly be appropriate only if the event occured in external reality, where a real physical danger could have arisen. If on the other hand it were a vision, then Jacob would not have reason to believe he could have died.

However, we can answer as follows: The fact that an angel would physically harm him is in itself unusual. It is also clear that actually Jacob was the victor in the encounter - which implies that had he lost, he might have been killed. Indeed, when Jacob realizes that it was an angel he fought with rather than a human, and that this angel actually caused him physical damage, he realized that had he not succeeded, the angel might well have killed him.

The Incident in Sodom

Ramban also objects that if the visit of the three angels to Abraham was all a vision, then it would follow that the entire account of what occurred in Sodom concerning Lot, his family, and the inhabitants of Sodom, was all a vision - including even the destruction of the city itself. Ramban then says that Rambam himself believed that the events occurred, but that the conversations all took place in a vision.

It is not so much relevant here to discuss whether or not this latter statement is a correct interpretation of Rambam’s position on the matter. We can however state that the fact that the ‘vision’ approach implies that the entire Sodom account occurred in a vision is not in itself a disproof of the validity of the approach. Nevertheless, there is no need to go this far. We can instead say that the Lot story was indeed a vision, but that the city of Sodom was destroyed, and Lot and his daughters saved. The passages from the end of God’s dialogue with Abraham - where Abraham is pleading for the rescuing of Sodom - until the end of the story, read [in rough translation and in condensed form]:
“And Abraham said ‘Perhaps ten righteous men will be found [In Sodom]. And God said ‘[If there are ten] I will not destroy it, for their sake’. And the Lord went when He finished speaking to Abraham, and Abraham returned to his place. And the two angels came to Sodom..Lot...the people of Sodom surrounded the house....and the angels took Lot and his wife and two daughters out of the city....And God poured  brimstone and fire...destroyed the cities... Lot’s wife.. a pillar of salt. And Abraham arose in the morning at the place where he stood with the face of God. And he looked out at Sodom and Gommorrah and ...the smoke was rising like from a furnace. And as the Lord destroyed [Sodom..] He remembered Abraham....and God sent Lot from out of the midst of the destruction.....and his two daughters with him..”

According to the Abarbanel, the statement  “And Abraham arose in the morning at the place where he stood in the presence of God” indicates the end of the prophetic encounter begun with “And God appeared to Abraham in the plains of Mamre”. That is, that the entire Sodom account until here was a vision.
Indeed, the passages can perhaps be considered  as being redundant if the events did not occur in a vision, since the destruction of the cities and the saving of Lot and his family are described twice, as can be seen from the passages quoted above. If however Abraham experienced a vision from the appearance of the three angels until the turning of Lot’s wife to salt, perhaps a vision shared by Lot and his family or others as well, then the passages are not redundant.

The vision then serves as a moral challenge, to test the individuals involved, and then based on their actions and words, their fates are decided. For example, as with Abraham, Lot proved exceptionally hospitable, even risking his life. Lot’s wife proved unable to follow the command of the angels. The daughters were seemingly willing to be sacrificed to save the angels, and the sons-in-law scoffed at the whole thing. So, Lot and his daughters proved themselves worthy of living. And then, we are indeed told at the end of this moral-test vision, after the description of these moral tests, and after the destruction of Sodom, and the escape of Lot, his wife, and his daughters, after the turning of the wife to a pillar of salt, that:
“as the Lord destroyed [Sodom..] He remembered Abraham....and God sent Lot from out of the midst of the destruction.....and his two daughters with him..”

Visions and Moral Tests: The Appropriateness of the Vision State

The visions/dreams of a prophet can be interpreted as a means by which God can test the prophet’s moral strength - creating a complete mental scenario in the prophet’s mind, in order to test the response. The prophet at the time would not be in an ordinary sleep state. Instead he is as fully in control of his mental characteristics as he would be if he were wide awake. He can exert his will, and use his intelligence, exactly as he would  were he awake. The response may be purely mental, but it is exactly that - Man’s deepest intention - which interests God. For God to test someone, there is no need to put the person into an actual physical situation. Instead, a complete scenario is constructed and inserted into the person’s mental awareness in such a way that it seems perfectly real, yet allows his psyche, intelligence, and will to operate as though he were awake.
In an ordinary dream , it is the subconscious which constructs the dream-scenarios, and the subconscious which reacts. In the case of a prophetic dream or vision, the dream/vision scenario is directly implanted by God, and it is the entire waking faculties of the subject which controls the reaction.

The only  events which  can be initiated by man are his free willed decisions. All else occurs in accordance with the laws of nature, including its inherent random element [due to the quantum nature of events at their fundamental level]. Man is therefore responsible only for his freely willed decisions, nothing else. That is, only the mental events connected with the making of a free willed decision is of moral relevance.

To make a  moral evaluation of a subject what one needs to know is  various information regarding the mental state of the subject. If one knows all about human psychology and the effect of the individual’s genes and environment, the particular abilities and limitations of the individual, whether the person weighed carefully all the factors known to him, whether he was sincere, whether he felt that he was acting correctly or not, what his mental state is [and so on], then a moral evaluation can be made if the criteria for such an evaluation are available. The actual physical events and their consequences are irrelevant to the question of whether or not the subject acted rightly or wrongly.

When one man judges another however, since he cannot know the other’s thoughts, he can rely only on what is apparent to him - namely, the actions of the subject, and perhaps the consequences of that action. However, one cannot always correctly judge the subject’s intentions and emotions from his actions. And certainly one’s intentions are not always directly deducible from the results of one’s actions. Furthermore, the mental struggle accompanying a decision are not visible in the action which follows the decision. And, being human, one cannot be sure that one’s moral standards or criteria for judgement are valid.

Nevertheless, it is the mental arena which is of moral relevance, not the physical. For an understanding of the moral dimension, if the exact sequence of mental events are known, no additional information is added  by an analysis of the consequent physical actions and their physical ramifications. Because of the limitations of human knowledge and understanding,  judging according to results of actions rather than their intent is often unavoidable, but these are then not moral judgements but rather legal judgements  - albeit morally sanctioned ones.                                 
...............

The Appropriateness of the Garden of Eden Account as a Vision: The Garden of Eden Account as a Moral Test

By adapting the foregoing approach of the Rambam regarding prophetic encounters, it may be possible to interpret the second creation account as a literal description of mental events in the mind of man. Indeed, the second account is about man’s obedience to God, man’s connection to God, man’s use of free will and so on, all of which are mental issues, and which  have to be determined at the mental level.

If the events in Eden were to occur in an ordinary purely physical context, one can speculate that the elements of interest to God would be the mental events in the minds of the protagonists.

In fact, not only is it sufficient to present the dilemma in a mental rather than physical context, it may be  preferable. Physical scenarios may be limited by  considerations such as conformance to the laws of nature,  and they may involve unwanted interference by extraneous elements. Only  a mental construct can be designed to provide the optimal scenario.  Therefore, since it is within God’s power to create the situation directly in the subject’s mind, we can perhaps assume that God would do so.
Indeed, in the case of a seminal conflict such as that presented to Man in Eden, it is eminently desirable to ensure that no extraneous events interfere with the situation. The best way to ensure this is to present the conflict within the context of a directly implanted mental vision.

As stated above, Rambam states that even angels seen by two people at the same time [as with Manoakh and his wife, parents of Samson], were seen in a dream/vision by both simultaneously. Thus it is possible for both Adam and Eve to have shared the same vision, with the events in the vision interacting in the same way that events would interact in an actual physical context.           
The Garden of Eden and Science
As we have seen, Rambam states that all prophetic encounters other than those of Moshe are to be interpreted  as having occurred in dreams or visions. The question is whether or not Adam is considered as a prophet. And if so, was he perhaps on a different level, perhaps similar to that of Moshe, or even higher, so that his prophetic experiences were not restricted to dreams and visions.

Scientific evidence does not seem to support the historicity or physical possibility of the events related in the second creation account if these were physical events in the external world as opposed to mental events. Therefore, if Adam was a prophet like all others - except Moshe -  and his experiences occurred in a vision, they present no difficulty in themselves to scientific theory. However if Adam was in a category other than the other prophets, so that the events related occurred in the physical external world rather than in a vision, then there would seem to be an apparent conflict with scientific theory.

However, even in such a case, since the events in the Garden of Eden occurred prior to the establishment of the laws of nature, the events did not occur in the physical universe as we know of it, and would not have effects in the physical universe, and would therefore not leave traces detectable via modern scientific investigation.

Either way then, the Garden of Eden account cannot present a contradiction to any physical laws, or to any theories based on these laws - either way they occurred in a non-physical context, as part of a vision which Adam  was granted, or in some other manner.

Adam As Prophet
According to many Traditional sources, until his rebellion Adam  existed on a  higher spiritual level than  Man today, and his body was not a purely physical one.  Therefore one might conclude that, like with Moshe, Adam was an exception to the rule, and the events referring to him related in the Bible were not part of a vision. That is, that the narrative in the Bible regarding Adam is refers to events in the outside physical universe rather than to mental events in the mind of a prophet - that is, a vision.

On the other hand, if the events are such as would be impossible except with a being on the spiritual level of Adam, possessing a spiritualized body, then perhaps it is incorrect to say that they were actual physical events. We would then not interpret the accounts referring to Adam as being descriptions of events in the outside universe.

Alternatively, the dialogue between God and Adam continued after the eating of the Tree of Knowledge, without any apparent change in the level or type of communication. Therefore if Adam’s level after eating was that of ordinary man, perhaps this means that his dialogues previously were also of the ordinary prophetic type.

It may be however that Adam’s level changed only after the expulsion from Eden, so that one cannot say as above that the earlier interchanges were at the ordinary prophetic level. In fact, in the same way that his placement in Eden meant an increase in his status rather than a change in his physical location [See Gen. R. 15:5 and 16:8], the expulsion of Adam from Eden might mean precisely this downward change in his status .  Indeed after the expulsion there is no recorded dialogue  between  God and Adam , and no record of any non-natural event occurring to Adam. Thus perhaps all the events recounted occurred only while Adam was on a higher level, in a spiritualized body - that is, while he was ‘in the Garden of Eden’.

Nevertheless as we stated above, if the events are such as would be impossible except to a being such as Adam with a spiritualized body, then perhaps it is incorrect to say that they were actual physical events.

Rambam: Adam as Prophet, and the Laws of Nature

Rambam states clearly that only Moshe was on a level sufficiently high for him to be able to experience dialogue with God in a full waking state, implying that Adam was not on this level, and therefore that God’s command to Adam, and Adam’s dialogues with God, all occurred in a vision, as with all prophets other than Moshe. However, if according to Rambam Adam was like other prophets,  so that his dialogues with God and his non-natural experiences  occurred in a vision rather than physically, it would seem that this conclusion would have been significant enough to warrant that Rambam would have mentioned it explicitly.
Perhaps the reason Rambam does not mention Adam in this connection is that there was no need to. According to Rambam, based on ‘all the Rabbis’, the entire Garden of Eden story occurred prior to the institution by God of the laws of nature. Thus, since these events were not in conflict with the laws of nature, Rambam felt no need to consider these events as occurring in a vision.  

If one  interprets these events as occurring in the when the laws of nature were in effect, then perhaps one can categorize Adam’s experience with all other prophetic experiences, so that they occurred in a vision, or in the partly spiritual plane of Adam’s spiritualized body. If they occurred prior to the institution of physical law, then they necessarily occurred in a non-ordinarily-physical plane. Either way, they were not ordinarily-physical events.

From Rambam’s words it is not clear whether or not he considers Adam to have been a prophet at all, and if so whether he was a prophet on the same level as all the other prophets other than Moshe. On the one hand Rambam seems to imply that Adam  was indeed a prophet. In his words [”Guide” II:39]:
“..the prophecy of Moses was different from that of other prophets; we will now explain that this distinction alone qualified him for proclaiming the Torah, a mission without parallel in the history from Adam to Moses, or among the prophets who came after him.”
However, the next quote:
“There were prophets before Moses, as the patriarchs Shem, Eber, Noakh, Meshuselakh, and Khanokh....”
seems to imply that Adam was not a prophet. However, perhaps Rambam does not mention Adam since it is obvious that he was a prophet since not only did God speak to him, but God actually conversed with him.
  • Back to: "Jewish Philosophy"
    • >
  • Back to Main Page: Physics; Judaism; Kabballah; Instant Universe, Big Bang, Evolution