הרב ראובן חיים קליין Rabbi Reuven Chaim Klein

The Splitting of the Red Sea: Righteous Vengeance, Not Salvation!

by Rabbi Reuven Chaim Klein

Download (PDF, 339KB)

Reprinted with permission.

Rabbi Reuven Chaim Klein is the author of the newly-released work God versus Gods: Judaism in the Age of Idolatry (Mosaica Press, 2018). His book follows the narrative of Tanakh and focuses on the stories concerning Avodah Zarah using both traditional and academic sources. It also includes an encyclopedia of all the different types of idolatry mentioned in the Bible.

Rabbi Klein studied for over a decade at the premier institutes of the Hareidi world, including Beth Medrash Govoha in Lakewood and Yeshivas Mir in Jerusalem. He authored many articles both in English and Hebrew, and his first book Lashon HaKodesh: History, Holiness, & Hebrew (Mosaica Press, 2014) became an instant classic. His weekly articles on synonyms in the Hebrew language are published in the Jewish Press and Ohrnet. Rabbi Klein lives with his family in Beitar Illit, Israel and can be reached via email to: rabbircklein@gmail.com

What’s the Difference Between ‘Chofesh’ and ‘Cherut’?

Defining Freedom

by Rabbi Reuven Chaim Klein

The Holiday of Passover, when the Jewish People were emancipated from slavery in Egypt, is described in our liturgy as Zman Cheiruteinu, “the Time of our Freedom.” However, as we shall see in the coming lines, the word cheirut is not the only Hebrew word for “freedom”. When the Bible refers to freeing slaves it uses two other words for “freedom”: chofesh and dror. An additional, conceptually-related word is hefker (“ownerless”), which is also related to freedom. We will seek to understand the differences between these four words and what lies at the roots of these words.

We begin with the words dror and chofesh. The word dror first appears in the Bible when discussing the freeing of slaves in the Jubilee Year (Lev. 25:10). Rashi, based on Rosh Hashana 9b, explains that the word dror is related to the word dar (“dwells”), and refers to one who dwells within his own domain, and does not fall under others’ control.

Dror is also a type of bird whose very essence expresses this notion. Ibn Ezra explains that the Dror Bird happily sings when free to its own devices, but if captured and stuck in man’s domain, it refuses to eat until it dies. Sefer HaAruchalso tells that the Dror Bird is suicidal when it loses its freedom. Radak in Sefer HaShorashim explains that a Dror Bird is called so because it builds nests inside people’s homes without fear of being captured as if it was completely free from the possibility of capture (see also Beitzah 24a). In this way, dror denotes being “free as a bird.”

When the Torah calls for “pure myrrh” to be used in the anointing oil (Exodus 30:23), the word dror is used for “pure”. Rabbi Yonah Ibn Janach and Nachmanides explain that this is because the Torah requires they use myrrh that is free from outside impurities and forgeries. Interestingly, the word dror can sometimes be abbreviated as dar, like in Esther 1:6 when it refers to Achashverosh granting merchants a special tax exemption (see Megillah 12a).

The word chofesh also appears in the Bible in the context of freeing slaves (most notably in Ex. 21, Deut. 15, and Jer. 34), although it means “vacation” in Modern Hebrew. In terms of their mutual association with the concept of “freedom”, Rabbi Shlomo Aharon Wertheimer (1866-1935) explains that dror and chofesh do not refer to the exact same phenomenon. Chofshi refers to freedom from an obligation to work, while dror refers to the freedom from subjugation to a specific person who lords over him. The word cheirut does not appear in the Bible in the context of freedom. Nonetheless, it is the standard word for freeing a slave in Rabbinical parlance. In the Birkat HaChodesh prayer, which we say on the Sabbath before Rosh Chodesh, we beseech G-d to redeem us from avdut (“servitude”) to cheirut (“freedom”). Moreover, the Mishnaic term shichrur is a cognate of cheirut that refers to the formal act of freeing a slave, and the Mishnaic phrase eved she’nishtachrar refers to a freed slave. On Passover Night we strive to act like Bnei Chorin — “free men.”

Although the Bible itself never uses the word cheirut in the context of freedom, Rabbinical tradition (Avot 6:2) finds a Scriptural allusion to such a meaning. The Bible describes the Tablets that Moshe brought from Mount Sinai as “the work of G-d, and the writing was the writing of G-d, engraved (charut) on the tablets” (Ex. 32:16). The root for the Hebrew word which means “engraved” is generally spelled CHET-REISH-TET. However, in this context a variant spelling is used, replacing the ultimate TET with a TAV. Because of this slight deviance from the norm, the Rabbis found something deeper alluded to in this verse: “Do not read it as not charut (‘engraved’), but as cheirut (‘freedom’), for the only person who is truly free is one who occupies himself with Torah study.” It seems fairly clear that if the ultimate purpose of the Exodus was to give the Jewish People the Torah at Mount Sinai, then the word for freedom resulting from the Exodus should appropriately be cheirut — and the holiday which celebrates that freedom should be termed Zman Cheiruteinu.

Nevertheless, our understanding of cheirut does not address its meaning vis-à-vis the other words for “freedom.” Why did the Rabbis decide to use the word cheirut for “freedom” instead of the words found in the Bible?

The British philosopher Isaiah Berlin (1909-1997) famously differentiated between two distinct types of freedom: “negative liberty” and “positive liberty.” Based on this philosophical distinction, Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks (Chief Rabbi Emeritus of the United Kingdom), offers a deeper understanding as to the difference between chofesh and cheirut. He explains that the adjective chofshi denotes what a slave becomes when he goes free. It means that he can do whatever his heart desires. The word chofesh is related to chafetz (desire) and chapess (search out). Rabbi Sacks, philosopher, identifies this type of freedom with “negative liberty” because it simply denotes the lack of coercion.

Negative liberty may be worthwhile on an individual level, but on a society level there must be some form of rules — one cannot simply do whatever one pleases. On the other hand, law and order must not be imposed in a coercive manner, because then the masses will resent and resist said law. Instead, the law must be presented and taught in a way in which everyone willingly accepts it of their own volition. When this happens, the law becomes a part of them — engrained in their very essence — for the greater good. To that effect, the Rabbis coined a new term cheirut, which denotes a sort of freedom that comes to a society where people not only know the law but study it constantly until it is engraved on their hearts (so charut and cheirut become one). On the surface, this “positive liberty” seems restrictive, but actually, it proves quite liberating.

Truth be told, the cheirut-cognate chorim does actually appear in the Bible, just not in the context of freedom, per se. Chorim appears thirteen times in the Bible in reference to noblemen and other dignitaries (see Rashi to Jer. 27:20). Rashi (to Sotah49a) explains that chorin are people of lineage. The illustrious Wurzberger Rav, Rabbi Yitzchok Dov Bamberger (1807-1878), explains that chorim is related to the Aramaic words whose root is CHET-VAV-REISH, which means “white.” He explains that dignitaries are called “white” because their reputation must be untarnished and because only important people were allowed to wear white clothes in the ancient world. (Rabbi Yaakov Tzvi Mecklenburg (1785-1865) associates cheirut with the Hebrew root chor, which means“hole” and uses those exact letters, but we will not delve into his approach here.)

That said, it seems to me that the Rabbis chose to use the word cheirut and various conjugations thereof in order to convey the idea of freedom on Passover for a very important reason. They wished to stress that newly-freed slaves begin their new lives with a clean slate, and they have the potential to become important people in their own right. On Passover, we recognize and celebrate this potential for greatness. This optimistic, yet challenging, look at a freedman’s bright future warranted the Rabbis’ adoption of a new word for “freedom,” even though the Bible already has two words for that concept.

  • L’iluy Nishmat my mother Bracha bat R’ Dovid and my grandmother Shprintza bat R’ Meir

Rabbi Reuven Chaim Klein is the author of the newly-released work God versus Gods: Judaism in the Age of Idolatry (Mosaica Press, 2018). His book follows the narrative of Tanakh and focuses on the stories concerning Avodah Zarah using both traditional and academic sources. It also includes an encyclopedia of all the different types of idolatry mentioned in the Bible.

Rabbi Klein studied for over a decade at the premier institutes of the Hareidi world, including Beth Medrash Govoha in Lakewood and Yeshivas Mir in Jerusalem. He authored many articles both in English and Hebrew, and his first book Lashon HaKodesh: History, Holiness, & Hebrew (Mosaica Press, 2014) became an instant classic. His weekly articles on synonyms in the Hebrew language are published in the Jewish Press and Ohrnet. Rabbi Klein lives with his family in Beitar Illit, Israel and can be reached via email to: rabbircklein@gmail.com

Reprinted from Ohr Somayach here.

In Search of the Exodus Pharoah

The Pharoah and the King

by Rabbi Reuven Chaim Klein

I still remember my fifth-grade rebbe, Rabbi A. Y. Berman, asking the one-hundred-dollar question: Why does the Torah sometimes refer to the Egyptian monarch as Melech Mitzrayim (“the King of Egypt”) and sometimes as Pharaoh (“the Pharaoh”)? The term Melech Mitzrayim appears in the Bible close to fifty times, while the word Pharaoh appears a whopping 274 times! In six cases, both names are used together: Pharaoh Melech Mitzrayim (Ex. 6:11; 6:13; 6:29; 14:8, I Kgs. 3:1, and Ezek. 29:2). Why does the Bible sometimes use one term, sometimes the other — and sometimes both?

As you might know, Pharaoh is not a personal name, but rather it is a title held by the King of Egypt. Rashi (to Ps. 34:1 and Ezra 6:14) writes that every king of Egypt is called Pharaoh (in contrast, Radak to Gen. 26:9 writes that most kings of Egypt were named/called Pharaoh). When the Pharaoh’s butler spoke up to recommend Yosef as a dream-interpreter, the butler began his speech by saying, “I shall mention my sin today: Pharaoh became angry at his servant (i.e. me) and he put me in detention…” (Gen. 41:10) In some versions of Rashi’s commentary, here he again comments that every king of Egypt is called Pharaoh. Rabbi Ovadia of Bartenura (1440-1500) points out that Rashi proffered that explanation because one might otherwise think that Pharaoh was the king’s name and the butler acted disrespectfully by referring to the king by his personal name. To preclude that understanding, Rashi explained that all Egyptian kings are called Pharaoh, so Pharaoh is a title and not a name. Ibn Ezra (there) makes a similar point.

Nonetheless, the Bible does give us the personal names of three different Egyptian kings. Firstly, the Egyptian king during the reigns of King Solomon and his son Rehoboam was named Shishak (interestingly, the Bible never describes him as Pharaoh, but only as Melech Mitzrayim). Shishak is commonly identified by archeologists as Pharaoh Shoshenq I. Secondly, the Egyptian king during the reign of King Josiah was Pharaoh Necho (“lame” or “handicap” Pharaoh). According to the Midrash, he was called such because he was partially paralyzed. When Necho killed Josiah in battle, he captured King Solomon’s Throne, and when he dared sit on it one of the lions on the throne struck him, rendering him partially paralyzed. The third king mentioned by name is in the generation after Josiah. When Jeremiah foretells the downfall of Egypt, he mentions its leader by name: Pharaoh Chafra, king of Egypt (Jer. 44:30).

The Apocryphal Midrash Sefer HaYashar gives us the personal names of some more kings of Egypt. According that source, Severus, son of Anam (see Gen. 10:13 which lists the Anamites as descendants of Ham’s son Mitzrayim, the progenitor of the Egyptians) who was the king of Egypt when a man from Babylon named Rakayon impressed the king and his nation with his great wisdom. In the end, Severus renamed Rakayon “Pharaoh” and appointed him the day-to-day ruler of Egypt, while Severus himself remained the ultimate king of Egypt (who would appear in public only once a year). The Egyptians paid special homage to Rakayon by decreeing that all future kings of Egypt should be named Pharaoh.

According to Sefer HaYashar, the Pharaoh in the generation after Yosef’s death was Pharaoh Melol. He ruled for ninety-four years. Instead of calling him Melol, Melech Mitzrayim, the Jews called him Maror Melech Mitzrayim because he made the lives of the Jews bitter (maror) by enslaving them. Interestingly, Egyptologists have discovered that in ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics, the same glyph was used for the r-sound and the l-sound. Even more interestingly, some scholars identify Pharaoh Melol with Pharaoh Pepi II, whose alternate name was Merire.

Sefer HaYashar relates that Melol’s successor was his son Pharaoh Adikam. He was also known as Adikam Achuz because achuz means “short” in Egyptian and Adikam was only one amah (cubit) tall (see also Mo’ed Katan 18a). Adikam was a short, ugly fellow whose beard reached to his ankles. It was during Adikam’s reign that the Jews’ Exodus from Egypt happened.

According to Sefer HaYashar, Pharaoh and Melech Mitzrayim were originally two different titles held by different people, but eventually, it seems, those two offices were merged. This, however, does not explain why the Bible sometimes uses one title, sometimes the other, and sometimes both.

The Zohar (Shemot 17a; 19b) explains that in most of the opening story of the Book of Exodus, the Bible mentions Melech Mitzrayim. This refers to the angelic minister who represents the Egyptian nation in the Heavens. On the other hand, when the Torah refers to Pharaoh or Pharaoh Melech Mitzrayim, this refers to the human king of the Egyptians. Following this approach, the Zohar explains that when the Torah reports “…and Melech Mitzrayim died…” (Exodus 2:23), this does not refer to the death of the earthly King of Egypt, but to the removal of the Egyptians’ Heavenly minister from its prominence. Only once G-d demoted the Egyptians’ Heavenly representative did He begin to listen to the Jews’ prayers for redemption.

Rabbeinu Bachaya (to Gen. 41:1) writes that throughout the story of Yosef’s interpreting Pharaoh’s dreams, the king is only referred to as Pharaoh and not Melech Mitzrayim because that story was the beginning of Pharaoh’s personal downfall, which culminates in the Jews’ exodus from Egypt and the Egyptians drowning in the Red Sea. The only exception to this is that when mentioning Yosef’s standing in front of Pharaoh, he is called Pharaoh Melech Mitzrayim (Gen. 41:46) in order to stress that he was able to remain king only because he listened to Yosef’s sagely advice. The drawback of Rabbeinu Bachaya’s explanation is that he does not offer an all-encompassing theory as to when the Bible uses Pharaoh and when it uses Melech Mitzrayim and when it uses both.

Partially basing himself on Rabbeinu Bachaya, Rav Chaim Kanievsky offers a comprehensive discussion about the three different ways in which the Bible refers to the Pharaoh. He explains that when the Pharaoh was acting on behalf of national interests, then he is referred to as Melech Mitzrayim. In contrast, when Pharaoh’s actions are motivated by his own, selfish interests (be that his self-aggrandizement or simply his pathological stubbornness), then he is called Pharaoh. When both of these factors played a role, then the king is known as Pharaoh Melech Mitzrayim.

What does the word Pharaoh mean? Rabbi Yitzchak Abarbanel (1437-1508) and Rabbi Avraham Menachem Rappaport (1520-1596) explain that “Pharaoh” is a term the Bible uses to illustrate the Egyptian king’s depravity, and is either a contraction of the Hebrew phrase po’el ra (“doer of evil”) or peh ra (“bad mouth”). Rabbi Eliezer ben Eliyahu Ashkenazi (1515-1585) claims in his work Ma’ase Hashem that the Egyptians spoke Latin/Italian. He uses that notion to explain the meaning of the name Pharaoh by arguing that “Pharaoh” means “master” in Italian. (After consulting with experts, we remain unable to confirm this.) Nonetheless, it is virtually a historical fact that the Egyptians spoke Egyptian, not Latin. Academia tends to explain that Pharaoh means “the great house”.

  • L’Ilyu Nishmat my mother Bracha bat R’ Dovid and my grandmother Shprintza bat R’ Meir

Rabbi Reuven Chaim Klein is the author of the newly-released work God versus Gods: Judaism in the Age of Idolatry (Mosaica Press, 2018). His book follows the narrative of Tanakh and focuses on the stories concerning Avodah Zarah using both traditional and academic sources. It also includes an encyclopedia of all the different types of idolatry mentioned in the Bible.

Rabbi Klein studied for over a decade at the premier institutes of the Hareidi world, including Beth Medrash Govoha in Lakewood and Yeshivas Mir in Jerusalem. He authored many articles both in English and Hebrew, and his first book Lashon HaKodesh: History, Holiness, & Hebrew (Mosaica Press, 2014) became an instant classic. His weekly articles on synonyms in the Hebrew language are published in the Jewish Press and Ohrnet. Rabbi Klein lives with his family in Beitar Illit, Israel and can be reached via email to: rabbircklein@gmail.com

Reprinted from Ohr Somayach over here.

Atzavim, Shikutzim, Chamanim, Asherim

Top Ten Words for Idols

The classical rabbinic work Avos d’Rabbi Nosson (ch. 34) writes that just as there are ten names which refer to G-d, so too there are ten words for idolatry. Malbim explains that these ten words of idolatry correspond to the ten names of G-d because G-d created the world such that there is equal power to the forces of good and the forces of evil. This equalization serves to allow each individual to choose his own path, without prejudice towards one option over the other. As you might know, man’s ability to choose his own path is the basis for all reward and punishment.

Before we go on to explain these ten words, Rabbi Yom Tov Tzahalon (1559-1638), sometimes known as Maharitatz, points out the obvious: While the ten names of G-d refer to One Entity who is called by ten names, the ten words for idolatry represent ten distinct types of idol worship, and do not refer back to one unified idea. In other words, the Bible uses these ten words to disparagingly refer to idolatry, but these words are not contextually interchangeable because they may refer to different aspects of idolatry. Still, the Sages understood that conceptually all of these words allude to various negative properties of idolatry in general.

We will now visit each of these ten synonyms and explain how they relate back to idol worship or idolatrous deities. Idolatrous deities are called elilim because they are “hollow” (chalulim). Malbim explains that idolaters pretend that idols have holy spirits within them, but, in reality, they are hollow and empty. Two different versions of Rashi (to Shabbat 149a) give two different explanations as to the meaning of elilim. In the printed edition of Rashi he explains that the word elilim is related to the word chalalim (“corpses”), ostensibly because idols, like corpses, are inanimate objects that have no life. An alternate version of Rashi (cited by Rabbeinu Nissim and Ritva there) explains that elilim is related to chalulim (“hollow”) because their existence was imagined in the “empty cavity of the hearts” of those who worship them.

Elsewhere, Rashi (to Lev. 19:4, Jer. 14:14, Zech. 11:17, Job 13:4), as well as Ibn Ezra (to Lev. 19:4) and Nachmanides (to Job 13:4), explain that the word elil is derived from the Hebrew word al (“not”), and refers to the nothingness and non-existence of idols’ powers.

One type of idol is a pesel because it is considered “disqualified” (nifsal or pasul) from the range of legitimate expressions of worship.

Another type of idol is called a masecha because it is “poured” (nisuchim).Malbim (1809-1879) and Rabbi Shlomo Pappenheim of Breslau (1740-1814) explain that this refers to metal idols that were formed through molten metal poured into cast molds. Rabbi Eliyahu Benamozegh (1822-1900) writes that the word masecha is related to sichah (anointment), and refers to the ritual anointing of idols for their “consecration” (which was said to bring the spirit of the deity into the physical idol).

An additional type of idol worship is called a mazteivah (“single-stone altar”), because idols must remain “standing” (nitzavim) in their place and cannot move on their own.

Idols are also called atzavim (literally, “bones”) because they are made up of multiple parts, like the bones of a person (as opposed to G-d, Who cannot be broken down into multiple components). Malbim writes that idols are called atzavim because they “sadden” (atzuv) those who worship them, for they cannot deliver the expected results.

The Bible sometimes refers to idols as gilulim because they are “disgusting” (megualim) and are comparable to “excrement” (glalim). Rabbeinu Shimshon of Shantz and Pirush ha’Raavad (in their commentaries to the Toras Kohanim) clarify that these expressions of disgust and repulsiveness do not refer to the sin of idolatry. Rather, this term reflects the physical attributes of the idols themselves. For example, if rain falls upon idols left outside, then wooden idols become moldy, and metal ones rusty; if they are singed by fire they can also become filthy and repulsive.

Malbim explains that the disgust refers to the face of the images, which are sometimes portrayed as such disgusting creatures as insects, moles, and bats.

The execrable properties of idols are reflected in another two synonyms for idols: They are sometimes called terafim because they can become “rotten,” and sometimes called shikutzim because they are indeed an “abomination” (sheketz).

Idols are also called chamanim (a derivative of the word chamah — “sun”) because they are left outside to stand in the sun. Interestingly, Rav Achai Gaon (680-752) in Sheiltos d’Rav Achai Gaon explains that idols are called chamanim because they die like animals.

What is the connection between the word chamanim and animals? The Netziv, Rabbi Naftali Tzvi Yehudah Berlin (1816-1893), explains that when people die, thereby losing their ability to continue functioning, they are customarily buried in order to conceal their embarrassment. Animals, on the other hand, are not given that respect. Rather, their corpses are allowed to remain out in the open and continuously rot under the heat of the sun. Based on this, the Netziv explains that Rav Achai means that idols are most comparable to dead animals inasmuch as both are not buried when rendered useless, but are simply left out in the sun.

Finally, some idols are called asherim because they receive their “validation” (ishur) through other forces. This is because idols only receive their validation (i.e. praise) from others, but are not worthy of praise on their own merits, for they do not actually have any powers. Malbim explains this slightly differently. He writes that the “validation received through others” refers specifically to moon-worship because even though the ancient idolaters acknowledged that the moon does not possess any light of its own, but rather receives its light from the sun, they still continued to worship the moon.

Pirush ha’Raavad writes that idols are called asherim because they receive their “straightening out” (yashar) from outside forces. In other words, if the idol falls down for some reason, it cannot pick itself up, but rather needs to be set up again by someone else.

For more information about the different types of idolatry and how the struggle against Avodah Zarah played out in Biblical times, check out my new book G-d versus Gods: Judaism in the Age of Idolatry (Mosaica Press, 2018). Available online and at Jewish bookstores.

How Many Types of (Good) Angels Are There?

Cherubic Children and Other Angels

The Torah commands that atop the Holy Ark in the Tabernacle they should make two kruvim (“cherubim”) facing each other. The Talmud explains that kruvim looked like young children. At the same time, kruvim are also the name of certain destructive angels said to protect the path to the Tree of Life (see Rashi to Gen. 3:24). In the following paragraphs, we will explore kruvim and other words for angels that appear in the Bible, and try to show how their meanings differ from one another. For those interested, this essay also doubles as a primer on Jewish Angelology.

Maimonides (Laws of Yesodei HaTorah 2:7) writes that there are ten classes of angels. The highest class of angels — above which only G-d stands — are the chayot, or chayot hakodesh. Then come the ophanim, erelim, chashmalim, seraphim, malachim, elohim, bnei elohim, cherubim, and finally, the ishim.

When the Orchot Chaim (Seder Tefillat Shabbat Shacharit §2) and Kolbo (§37) cite this tradition, they write that there are nine types of angels. They differ from Maimonides in that they omit malachim, elohim, bnei elohim, and ishim and instead list galgalim, irin, and kadishin. A Kabbalistic tract known as Masechet Atzilut has a different list of the ten categories of angels, which mirrors Maimonides’ list but replaces chayot and elohim with shananim and tarshishim. Besides all of this, Rabbi Moshe ibn Chaviv (1654-1696) points out that angels are also called abirim (see Ps. 75:25). [Rabbi Dovid Luria (1798-1855), in his glosses to Pirkei d’Rabbi Eliezer (ch. 4), understands that that Midrash maintains that ophanim and galgalim are synonyms, and kruvim and chayot are also synonyms.]

What are the meanings of each of these words, and how does each class of angels differ from the others?

The anonymous commentator to Maimonides writes that some explain that the chayot are called so because they appeared to the prophet Yechezkel in the form of “wild animals” (chayot). In This World, animals are not the highest forms of creation. Rather, the human stands at the pinnacle of creation. Consequently, the highest form of angels appeared to Yechezkel as animals in order to teach the prophet that even the highest creature in the Upper Realms is still like an animal compared to G-d — the pinnacle of all existence. The chayot are not the highest of all entities, but only the highest of all created entities in the Upper Realms. Alternatively, the chayot are called so because they are used to provide the life-force (chiyut) to all lower creations.

The word ophan refers to an angel of the second class, and also means “wheel”. If G-d’s glory is likened to a chariot (as it is in Yechezkel’s visions), then the ophan is the wheel which brings that vehicle to other places. In several works ascribed to the school of Rabbi Elazar Rokeach of Worms, it is stated that the ophan refers to “the inside of a wheel,” while galgal refers to “the outside of a wheel” (i.e. its spokes).

This anonymous commentator further writes that an erel (Isaiah 33:7) — an angel of the third class — refers to something “strong” or “important,” just like the Holy Temple and its Altar are called Ariel and Harel (Ezek. 43:15). The School of Rokeach teaches that erelim tell the other angels about G-d’s Divine decrees. Bar Kapara, a student of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, is said to have announced his master’s death by proclaiming: “Erelim and the afflicted [i.e. the human righteous] both grabbed onto the Holy Ark [i.e. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi]; the erelim overpowered the afflicted, and the Holy Ark was captured [i.e. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi died, and was taken away by the erelim, who are charged with carrying out G-d’s decrees, much to the dismay of the righteous humans who now lost their venerated leader].” (Ketubot 104a)

The fourth class of angels, chashmalim, reveal themselves to prophets through fiery flashes of light. The Talmud (Chagiga 13b) explains that the name of this class of angels is comprised of the two words chash (“quiet”) and mal (“speak”), because they sometimes speak of G-d’s glory and they sometimes remain quiet. The School of the Rokeach interprets the word chashmal as a portmanteau of chashuv (“important” on account of their proximity to G‑d’s glory) and mal (“speak” because they speak of G-d’s holiness). In Modern Hebrew, the word chashmal refers to “electricity.”

The anonymous commentator to Maimonides writes that seraphim are called so on account of their appearance, which is so awesome that one who gazes upon them will be automatically burned up (saruf).

He also explains that malachim refers to all classes of angels in general, and is also a more specific term that refers to the sixth class of angels. He likens this to Taharot, which is both the name of one of the Six Orders of the Mishna, and the name of a tractate within the Order of Taharot. The Rokeach’s school understands that malachim refers specifically to angels which were sent to Earth for special missions.

The seventh class of angels is called elohim, a term which refers to any entity in a position of power or authority. It is used variously to refer to an angel, a judge, a prophet, and even G-d Himself. A closely-related term is used for the eighth class of angels, the bnei elohim (literally, “sons of elohim”), who are called so because they are secondary to the elohim.

As mentioned above, kruvim (“Cherubim”) are the ninth class of angels. Many commentators explain that the word kruv (“Cherub”) is derived from the Aramaic word ravia (“lad”) found in the Targum to Gen. 21:17 and many other places. The letter KAF at the beginning of the word means “like” or otherwise denotes a simile. This etymology is the basis for the Talmudic assertion (Chagiga 13b and Succa 5b) that kruvim looked like children. (Whether the cherubim atop the Holy Ark were two boys or a boy and girl is subject to dispute.) Other sources say that kruvim were in the shape of birds or some sort of child-bird hybrid.

The ishim are the lowest members of Maimonides’ angelic hierarchy. They are the angels which communicate directly with human prophets. They are called ishim (literally, “men”) because their level is similar to that of the human prophets with whom they speak. Alternatively, Rabbi Mordechai Shlomo Movshovitz (d. 1983) explains that they are called ishim because they sometimes act like humans, such as when three angels came to visit Avraham (Gen. 18) they looked like people and acted like people.

Although not on Maimonides’ list of angels, the School of the Rokeach explains the meanings of two more classes of angels: kadishin are angels which are “holy” (kadosh) and “separate” from the others, in that they do not carry out Divine commands, but rather tell other angels what to do. And irin are sent to Earthly cities (ir in Hebrew means “city”) to observe the deeds of mankind, and to give people specific dreams. Rabbi Yaakov Tzvi Mecklenburg (1785-1865) writes that the name irin is derived from the word eir (AYIN-REISH), which means “awake,” because these angels are always “awake” and paying attention to what people do.

Rabbi Reuven Chaim Klein is the author of the newly-released work God versus Gods: Judaism in the Age of Idolatry (Mosaica Press, 2018). His book follows the narrative of Tanakh and focuses on the stories concerning Avodah Zarah using both traditional and academic sources. It also includes an encyclopedia of all the different types of idolatry mentioned in the Bible.

Rabbi Klein studied for over a decade at the premier institutes of the Hareidi world, including Beth Medrash Govoha in Lakewood and Yeshivas Mir in Jerusalem. He authored many articles both in English and Hebrew, and his first book Lashon HaKodesh: History, Holiness, & Hebrew (Mosaica Press, 2014) became an instant classic. His weekly articles on synonyms in the Hebrew language are published in the Jewish Press and Ohrnet. Rabbi Klein lives with his family in Beitar Illit, Israel and can be reached via email to: rabbircklein@gmail.com