On Sukkot, many Jews welcome guests, ushpizin, which is related to the word “auspices,” who are the ancient heroes of Israelite history. On Friday night, we say barechuni le-shalom, that we ask angels to bless us, and in the Ashkenazi selihah, machnisei rahamim, we say words that sound as if we are praying to God and not to angels.

I. The Problem

The problem with these rites is that as monotheists, we would assume that the rites are theologically wrong. The malach, or angel, in Ugaritic literature is a low grade divinity is a polytheistic pantheon.

The root of malach in Ugaritic is l-a-k, cognate to h-l-k/y-l-k in Hebrew. refers to “going,” walking, or agency. Does belief in or worship of angels conflict with Judaism?

Professor Rachel Elior has argued that Judaism speaks in many voices. Angels appear in Hebrew scripture, the Qumran library, and popular religion folklore. The Machnise Rahamim and Shalom Aleichem reflect Orthodox Jews apparently praying to angels. From the time of Targum Onqolos to Maimonides, official religion Judaism rejects the notion that angels are proper targets of devotion. While Qumran and apocalyptic Second Commonwealth Judaisms accepts angels, as did some biblical texts, Deuteronomy, Jeremiah, the Oral Torah trove, and “official religion” Rabbinic Judaism does not. Which, both, or neither of these contending Judaisms “orthodox”

II. The Rabbinic Response

The Rabbinic sages knowingly required the reading of Targum Onqolos, which unlike apocalyptic writing, is radically non-anthropomorphic. bHollin 40a clearly rules that offering cult to the archangel Michael is idolatry, zivhei meitim.

Maimonides, Laws of Torah Foundations, chapters 1-2 and Repentance, 3:7, reiterates the official religion response to the matter. Ever the non-literalists, Maimonides regards angels as metaphors. The truth be told, a comparison of Hebrew Scripture to Ugaritic writing indicates that monotheism, that there is only one God, is not the only possible read of Scripture. [see Deuteronomy 32:7 in the Septuagint!]

Genesis 11:5 reports that God comes down from heaven to see what is happening when the Tower of Babylon was being built. Onqolos understands the metaphor to express revelation and, in the Aristotelian tradition, Maimonides argues that bodies move and God, who has no body, does not. If one understands peshat as how Scripture was understood by the first readers, it would seem that ancient Israel believed in angels and that God does appear physically to humans. The great pashtan and product as well as producer of medieval Northwestern European Judaism, whose cognate culture was Catholic and which believes that God can become flesh, Rashi is not at all troubled by the literalist sense of the verse Now, Rashi is a literalist, he is not shy when probing biblical problems and inconsistencies, often relies on Onqolos, i.e., ke-Targumo, but here rejects Onqolos by not endorsing a rejection of divine corporeality.

bSanhedrin 4b says that a blind person is exempt from appearing at the temple, that he who sees with two eyes must be seen with two eyes. Rashi takes the subject of the sentence who sees with two eyes to be God. The Talmud need not be seen this way but an authority as great as Rashi, the Tosafist R. Moses Taqu, and Raabad apparently believed in corporeal divinity.

III. The Culture Convention

Mimetic culture Orthodoxy, while aware of Maimonides’ view, ignores the view. Angels appear in the Bible and in the Rabbinic canon and the world of many Orthodox adherents is enchanted, infused with divinity, and neither Maimonidean nor modern.

Rabbi Moses Feinstein complained about those who refuse to say barechuni le-shalom. He believed that culture Orthodoxy may not be subject to review, as one cannot critique smoking because great rabbis smoke. To dissent with a great rabbi is rude, disrespectful, and therefore evil. Great rabbis are right by definition because these rabbis who believe that God has a body themselves embody Torah. The Judaism of the sacred library is applied by the rabbis in a way that the accepted and expected religion may not be challenged. bHollin 40a does not seem to be a concern for R. Feinstein. On the other hand, Rabbi Soloveitchik and the Gaon did not say the problematic passages. While the passages in question need not be taken literally, it is likely that their first readers took the passages literally. And a Judaism that will allow praying angels and accepting corporeality of God will find religious canonicity in the incarnate Torah sage whose insight and intuition parses the sacred text. We recall that Malbim to Hannah’s Prayer [I Samuel 2] rules, against bHollin 40a, that one may pray to angels. To this view, the “Tradition that cannot be questioned is inherited culture. We are by Raavad told that we may not question the Judaism that we have inherited from our ancestors while Maran Karo claims that we measure validity against the Torah canon library. [ Bet Yosef, Hoshen Mishpat 25] We recall that Raavad disagreed with Maimonides claim that one who believes that God becomes flesh is a heretic.

IV. The Correct Jewish attitude today

In medieval France , the world was enchanted. Scripture is read literally and law, figuratively. The Tosafist use of davqa, specifically, and lav davqa, regularly refer to a casuistic reading of the canonical Talmud that maintains the de jure authority of the Talmud while empowering the Tosafists to create a flexible law. Given the Christian cognate culture, these qualities of French Judaism are understandable if not acceptable.

The claim that calling Rashi wrong is disrespectful is problematic. Tosafot regularly called Rashi wrong, and in Sefer ha-Yashar, disrespectfully, according to Prof. Urbach. Prof. Karnafogel argues that there was a large divide in medieval theology. If tolerance for problematic doctrines is acceptable in medieval Judaism, why are contemporary Orthodox adherents less tolerant? Are we to claim that a doctrine endorsed by a great rabbi is by definition correct, even against the normative—as opposed to the descriptive—norms of the Oral Torah, have we not redefined God’s covenant to an oligarchic convention and consensus?

Today, we do not pray to angels and Onqolos regards the idiom as metaphor, as well. Therefore one may not object to others mentioning angels in prayers. Similarly, a parallel tolerance towards Orthodox Jews of good will who apply scientific method when studying Torah would necessary and appropriate.