avakesh

Purim in Klausenberg

Grand Rabbi Samuel Jacob Halberstam, Sanz-Klausenberg Rebbe of America leading the celebrations of the Jewish feast of Purim in his synagogue in the Boro Park section of Brooklyn, NY.

The Tongue and the Interpretation III

We had previously discussed the unique features of Biblical Hebrew - especially its ambiguity and poly-vocality. We noted that Rabbinic interpretation is based on this feature of the Holy Tongue.

Why did G-d write his Bible in such an unwieldy tongue, one that required extended interpretation and exegesis? This is the question that we will yet take up at length. Suffices to say for now that multiplicity of association and richness and multiplicity of meaning is particularly suitable for how He communicates with men. The Jew perceives the world as having arisen from the Divine word. The characteristic of spoken word is that, unlike sight, it is a medium that is modulated in volume, tonality, inflection and inner construction. The world that leapt into being when the Almighty spoke is correspondingly multi-faceted, inter-related, polyphonic and fraught with complexity. It requires interpretation to make sense. Since our earliest childhood, our parents, neighbors, society and later on the cultural heritage in the form of books and ideas provide the data and theory that enable us to make some sense of this complex world in which we find ourselves.  The book that expresses such a world must correspondingly be multileveled, appear contradictory, require keys to be properly decoded and at times, be intentionally even ambiguous  – and so it is.  Its keys lie in the Oral Law.

The dynamic nature of Biblical Hebrew

At first approach to Tanakh, the new reader is struck by the liveliness and quick flow of its narratives, the rapid movement of feeling, emotion and action throughout its pages. You find in its pages unrestrained liveliness, surprising metaphors, unexpected personifications. Mountains jump and quake, trees clap hands and the Spirit of G-d moves men. It is rare to see the Bible pause for a leisurely description of a scene or event, a rumination or meditation on a concept or a prolonged consideration of a thought or idea. Instead, it almost races from one profundity to another. Time does not flow, it leaps - from one event to another; more a series of vignettes than a continuous narrative. The Torah does not take the time to provide background information or to fill-in missing historical or descriptive elements for it focuses on the flow of happening and how it fits into the overall scheme. Some situations are presented in copious detail while whole other epochs are skipped over with nary a mention. In it all is Action, feeling trumps emotion, and life is viewed through the prism of the heart more than intellect. It is this feature that accounts for a sense of plastic time, as something that picks up and slows down to serve the purpose of the Narrator. Similarly, the Tanach does not describe people, events or places in significant detail, preferring to intimate them with a feature or two. It does not lecture or draw explicit morals for it prefers that the reader draws his or her conclusions. By drawing the reader into the process of interpretation and inference, he or she becomes a part of the process.

These features of Biblical writing are even more striking when we compare them with other works of the same  general period, such as the Odyssey and the Iliad or even the epic of Gilgamish. These epics have all the features with which we have become familiar from Western literature. They patiently sketch the background, expound at length upon appearances and features of characters and locations, provide extended meditations on the characters’ feelings and reactions and abound in descriptions of every kind. Tanach is written very differently and knwing this is of great importance to being able to read it properly[1]. The uniqueness of Biblical literature in comparison with Near Eastern and Greek literature has been acknowledged by academic scholars, some of whom suggested that it is purposeful. The form had to be made unique and different from pagan literature to fit the unique monotheistic content. The theology determines the structure.

While some of the features of Biblical writing are related to the unique features of its language,  others are intentional literary devices. We will postpone the discussion of  the latter to a separate section and focus , for now, on the former.

to be continued

---

[1] These features were first pointed out by E. Auerbach, in Mimesis: The representation of reality in Western literature. Tr. W. R. Task, Princeton University Press, 1953

A Gesheft - What do you think?

<><>

This first of a kind movie, will transform the way you view Jewish entertainment forever. Produced and directed by Orthodox Jews from Monsey, this movie includes action, drama, suspense, as well as Comedy. But most importantly, this movie is full of lessons of proper conduct and atittude while at the same time is immensely entertaining, and will keep you glued to your seat until the concluding moments of a thrilling journey. A Gesheft Buy it today, Enjoy it Forever! Available at www.mostlymusic.com

A word to Talmidei Chochomim

“People do not care how much you know until they know how much you care.”

John Maxwell

Esther ahd the Church Fathers

The book of Yonah is unique for, alone of the Biblcal books, it revolves around the interactions of a Jewish prophet with the non-Jewish world. What's more, the prophet is obstinate and recalcitrant while the gentiles are uniformly good-hearted and obedient. This salient fact has not passed unnoticed by non-Jewish commentators and scholars, who, as much as they dislike the book of Esther, love the Book of Jonah. Many modern scholars are fond of the idea that along with Ruth, this book somehow represents a response to the narrow particularistic outlook that must have prevailed among the returning exiles as typified by Ezra's rejection of the Samaritans and his abhorrence of intermarriage. In their view Biblical works represent disparate and sometimes dueling schools of thought and it is up to the reader to adopt or reject them as basis for personal philosophy. In itself this approach is not new for it can be traced to the Church Fathers who detested the book of Esther for its "Judaising" tendencies while extolling Jonah for its supposed criticism of the Jews and exultation of Gentiles. Ephrem Syrus, (306-373), had this to say about Yonah, "Praise be to God who mortified the Jews by the means of Gentiles". They found Esther, on the other hand, too viscerally Jewish, so anti-Gentile that even adherents of the "new Israel" coud not stomach it. They much preferred the saccharine religiousity of the Septuagint apocryphal version of Esther.

They found the book of Esther, at least its Hebrew parts, insufficiently religious. From the Catholic Encyclopedia, a revisionist view: A great many of the early Fathers clearly considered the entire work as inspired, although no one among them found it to his purpose to write a commentary on it. Its omission in some of the early catalogues of the Scriptures was accidental or unimportant. The first to reject the book was Luther, who declared that he so hated it that he wished that it did not exist (Table Talk, 59). His first followers wished only to reject the deuterocanonical parts, whereupon these, as well as other deuterocanonical parts of the Scriptures, were declared by the Council of Trent (Sess. IV, de Can. Scripturæ) to be canonical and inspired. With the rise of rationalism the opinion of Luther found many supporters. When modern rationalists argue that the Book of Esther is irreligious in character, unlike the other books of the Old Testament, and therefore to be rejected, they have in mind only the first or protocanonical part, not the entire book (the chapters imported from the Septuagint), which is manifestly religious. But, although the first (Hebrew) part is not explicitly religious, it contains nothing unworthy of a place in the Sacred Scriptures. And any way, as Driver points out (Introduc. to the Lit. of the Testament), there is no reason why every part of the Biblical record should show the "same degree of subordination of human interests to the spirit of God". 

Character

Life is what our character makes it.

Jules Renard, Journal   

      

Esther and Esther in King's Court

   

Copyright held by Raanan, http://www.yoramraanan.com/

Remember...do not forget!

 

Memories...

This week in honor of Purim we will explore a Midrashic passage that discusses the commandment to remember and destroy Amalek. This obligation is expressed in the following verse: "Remember what Amalek did to you on the way as you went out of Egypt...do not forget (Devarim 26,17-19).

On this the Toras Kohanim in Bechukosai 2 comments:

"Remember - you might think, "in the heart". When it says, "do not forget", forgetting in the heart has already been said. How do I understand "remember"? That you should say it with your mouth. (i.e. read the megillah on Purim)[1].

At first glance, this passage appears to be a classical derash, far form the simple meaning of the Bibilcal words. Where and how did the Sages see the obligation of Megillah reading in the above verse?

To understand this Midrashic passage, let us consider how the word "zakhor" used in this verse can be translated into English. There seem to be several candidates for a translation. We have, of course, the usual translation "remember"; however, there are also other contenders. They include words such as: recall, remind, reminisce, and commemorate. Each of these words has a different connotation. "Remember" itself connotes simple natural awareness of a memory, something that just is, something that does not need to be maintained; the others contain within them various degrees of activity and effort.

The Sages understood the word "zakhor" as more akin to the latter group.

Remember (zakhor) the Sabbath day (Shemos 20)" - commemorate (zakhreihu) over wine (to say Kiddush)[2].

In fact, for the meaning "zakhor" as awareness, you would use a different word. IN Biblicl Hebrew you would express it as "not forgetting".

He who forgets his learning transgresses a negative commandment, as it says: "Lest you forget these things and lest they leave your heart... You may think that this applies even if one's learning overpowers him. The Torah states:" Lest they leave your heart". One is not liable unless he sits down and actively uproots them from his heart(Avos 3:8).

In other words, the Torah commands you to remember, that is to retain what you had learned. It is expressed as a commandment to not forget. What is forbidden is to consciously and deliberately attenuate or erase these memories. Contrast this kind of memory with recall, reminding, review and commemoration, which are active and directed.

What this means is that when "zakhor" is placed next to "lo tishkach", it signifies a different kind of memory. The latter only demands that you passively remain aware but the former demands some kind of action to externalize and strengthen the memory. This active remembering may include review of relevant laws, a prescribed Torah reading or a performance of a ritual act[3] . The Sages are not making a "derash"; they are revealing to us the exact meaning of Hebrew words.

The same undersanding is found in Bereishis Rabbah 88:7 on the verse The chief butler did not (zakhar) remember Yosef and (vayshkacheuhu) he forgot him (Bereishis 40:23). The Midrash defines the difference between remembering and not forgetting:

Every day the butler made conditions (at dinnertime I will mention Yosef to Pharaoh; at nightfall I will tell Pharaoh about Yosef - Eitz Yosef), and the angel came and confused him. Every day the butler tied knots to remind himself and every day the angel came and untied them.

One has to appreciate that tying knots for the ancients was like taking notes is for us. The knots remind you of what you meant to recall. It is in allusion to this that the knots of the tzitzis serve to "remember all the commandments". The butler performed specific actions to "(zakhor) remember" Yosef but to no avail. Not only did his review not help him, he did not even retain an awareness of Yosef (vayshkacheuhu) and his special ability to interpret dreams.

Realizing that "zakhor" is a word that includes an activity associated with remembering, allows us to understand how the Chazal derived Megillah reading or parshas Zakhor from the simple meaning of the verses.

Learning Point: Many, although not all instances of "derash far removed from the simple meaning", are in fact examples of informed reading of the verses by people who understood and appreciated the precise significance and nuance of Biblical Hebrew much better than we do. It is an error to assume that the words that we usually use to translate specific Hebrew words, correctly represent all the shading and nuances of the original. Considering the whole range of cognate English words can sometimes cue us into the unique and specific meaning of the Hebrew word and reveal the basis of Midrashic comment.

Freilechen happy Purim

---

1 See Marcheshes 20 who explains that the enactment of megillah reading is a fulfillment fo the commandment to remember and persevere in the struggle against Amalek. Others explain that this midrash is the source of the Biblical obligation fo parshas Zakhor.

2 Pesachim 106a. See Tosafos there.

3 Examples: review-study of the laws of Seder night or Shabbos laws, recall-eating matza on Passover. commemoration-reading parshas Zakhor. For a detailed discussion of this concept as it impacts on many different areas, see M. Levin, With All Your Heart: The Shema in Jewsih Worship, Practice and Life, Targum/ Feldheim, 2002, 157-183

Rabbi Green on Purim

Rabbi Green on Purim

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4VsI-Cyhss