avakesh

Two different perspectives

Al Naharos Bavel - Salomon Rossi

Midrash and Allegory

We have already several times discussed interpretation of proper names in Tanach and Chazal. Today we will come back to this topic for it opens for us an unparalleled opportunity to open a window into Rabbinic the method or interpretation. We begin with Rashi's citation for it is well known and from it will proceed to the Sifri.

These are the words that Moshe spoke to all of Israel on the bank of Jordan, in the desert, in the dry land, against Suf, between Tofel and Chatseros and Di Zahav, eleven days journey form Horeb by the way of Mount Seir to Kadesh Barnea (Deuteronomy 1,1-2).

  R. Shimon Bar Yochai [1] said: We reviewed all of Scripture and found no place with the name Tofel and Lavan. Rather Moshe rebuked them regarding the Manna of which they spoke contemptuously (taflu) and which was white (Lavan).

Rashi, following Tragum Onkelos,  then follows this explanation in interpreting every location mentioned in this verse as referring to a particular sin. Thus, these names of places do not refer to places at all, neither in pshat nor in drash. No such places exist ("R. Yochanan said: we reviewed the entire Tanach and did not find a place called 'between lavan and zahav') and the only true explanation is that these terms are allusions to specific sins.

It needs to be pointed out that the verse which starts off the book of Devarim is difficult on many counts. First, if it purports to define a location, why does it list 5 coordinates? Two or three would suffice. Also the first several verses, are an introduction before an introduction.

1-5: THESE ARE the words which Moses spoke unto all Israel beyond the Jordan; in the wilderness, in the Arabah, over against Suph, between Paran and Tophel, and Laban, and Hazeroth, and Di-zahab. It is eleven days journey from Horeb unto Kadesh-barnea by the way of mount Seir. And it came to pass in the fortieth year, in the eleventh month, on the first day of the month, that Moses spoke unto the children of Israel, according unto all that HaShem had given him in commandment unto them; after he had smitten Sihon the king of the Amorites, who dwelt in Heshbon, and Og the king of Bashan, who dwelt in Ashtaroth, at Edrei;   

The real introduction is here (v. 6):

Beyond the Jordan, in the land of Moab, took Moses upon him to expound this law, saying (JPS Translation):

Back to the midrashic passage that we are expounding.

This explanation is found in the Sifri in the name of R. Yehuda. It is opposed there in no uncertain terms by another Tanna. R. Yosi Ben Dormaskis who proposes that these are names of real places but that nevertheless they in addition also bear a Midrashic explanation.

Said R. Yosi Ben Dormaskis to R. Yehuda BiRebbi: Why do you pervert verses? I bring Heaven and Earth as my witnesses and there is no place that has not be called its name except for what transpired there. An example, "He called the name of the place Eisek for they strove with him there" and it says, "And he called the name of the place Sheva". Similarly, R. Yehuda expounded (Zechariah 9), "The burden of Hashem's word in the land of Hadrach and Who rests in Damesek" - This is Moshiach who is sharp (Chad) to the nations and easy (Rach) to Israel. R. Yosi Ben Dormaskis said to him: "I bring Heaven and Earth as witnesses that I am from Damascus and there is such a place there. He answered him, So how do you interpret this verse? He said, "From where do we know that Jerusalem will extend to Damascus… [2].

The view of R. Yosi follows the pattern of many other Rabbinic statements. It argues that there is the simple meaning, the actual names of places, and the derash, the deeper or more profound meaning. Tofel and Lavan were the Midrashic names given to certain locations because of what happened there. What, however, is the view of R. Yehuda? He seems to say that there were no such places and that they never existed but are but an allegory.

The difference between true allegory and drash is that the former negates the surface meaning. Tofel and Lavan do not refer to real places that happen to contain also a secondary intent. Rather, the one and only meaning of these words is their allegorical meaning. Derush always makes sense in context, only not the easiest or most obvious meaning (there is a subset of derash that upon careful analysis reveals itself to be the best explanation in local or distant context - the so-called omek hapshat).  Allegory does not even attempt to claim the context. Another feature that helps to distinguish allegory and drash is that the former is always about spiritual meaning and significance whereas the latter is often about technical legal or aggadic issues. An allegory that does not dispose of pshat is naught but sermonizing.

The method of interpretation by allegory is familiar to us from the writings of Philo and it was taken from him into the Christian method of interpretation. In their hands, allegory served to divest the Jewish Bible of its meaning and to ascribe to it whatever meaning served best their theological ends. While it is true that an allegorical interpretation does not necessarily preclude a literal interpretation and; interpreters such as Origen of Alexandria and Augustine of Hippo maintained that the Bible is true on multiple levels at the same time, we must remember that the method of allegory was generated by Greek interpreters in order to bring their myths into concordance with philosophy and necessarily deny their literal meaning.  Jerome, the one of the "Hebrew Truth", was not a fan of allegory either.

Tanach itself contains occasional allegorical language. Yotham's parable a good example and so is its Rabbinic interpretation [3]. Another example, according to David Stern[4] is offered by the same R. Shimon Bar Yochai, the author of the Midrash that we are now discussing. Interestingly, Stern appears to have overlooked our midrash in Devarim that clearly employs allegorical interpretation.

R. Shimon Bar Yochai says: This thing is hard to say (i.e. allegorical) and impossible to express (theologically) - It (the story of Kain and Abel) is like two athletes who are wrestling in front of a king. If he wants to, he can separate them but the king did not want to separate them. One overpowered and killed another. He was screaming and saying, "Who can demand justice of the king". So also, "the blood of thy brother is screaming before me from the earth".

While this explanation can be used to nicely connect the two midrashim, it is hardly convincing. A better explanation for the midrash is that it is theological and addresses theodicy.

Allegory is ultimately an extension of the concept of metaphor. In a metaphor, a term stands for another term but in itself has no meaning. When we say that the eyes of are beloved are stars, we mean that they shine like stars or are beautiful like they. However, we in no way suggest that they are actually stars. The word star is a metaphor, standing for some quality, such as brightness or beauty. Derash, on the other hand, does not negate the reality of pshat but proposes a secondary or additive meaning.

In conclusion, allegory is a method of interpretation that is basic to non-Jewish approaches to Biblical interpretation. Its great deficiency is inability to tolerate multiple meanings, an axiom of Jewish approach, for it insists that the true meaning of a verse is not what it actually says but its allegorical meaning. This is perhaps the reason for its rarity in midrash. There are but a few examples of its use among the Rabbis, and even there, it appears to meet with opposition. In the example with which we started, allegory is subject to vehement opposition; yet, it is the allegorical explanation that was chosen by Rashi and that has become the inheritance of the Jewish people via his commentary.

---

1 In some editions, R. Yochanan

2 This midrash imples that R. Yehuda disagrees that Hadrach is a real place; however, in Canticles Rabba 7, 10 he is quoted as saying "the place which is called Hadrach" and R. Yosi Ben Dromaskis appears to state again what he says here. Other editions substitute R. Nechmia for R. Yehuda.

3 Tanchuma Buber 1, 103, Yalkut Shoftim 65, 9. For a discussion of allegory in the methodology of Maimonides and Ibn Ezra and for overview of its central role in Christian and Moslem interpretation, see I. Lancaster, Deconstructing the Bible: Abraham's Ibn Ezra's introduction to the Torah, Routledge Curzon, 2003

4 In Midrash and Theory, Northwesten Univ. Press, 1996, p. 43.

Bible Bar

 

Ezekiel was told to swallow a scroll (3:1) and R. Eliezer Hakallir became wise from eating a cake inscribed with the 22 letters of Hebrew alphabet (Aruch). Now comes another way to internalize the Bible....

Bible Bar!!!

Or, if you want to get into specific Books of the BIble:

 

The way to man's soul is through his stomach...?

How to reserve a seat next to a Rebbe? HInt: you need a shtreimel.

The Tribe of Menashe's Motivations by Chaim Gershon

 

 

        As related in this week's parasha, Mattos, the tribes of Reuven and Gad wanted good grazing ground for their cattle and requested Moshe to give them the land on the other side of the Yarden.  This reason for their request is explicitly related in the Torah. When Moshe grants their wishes, half the tribe of Menashe was unexpectedly added to those inheriting land outside the main land of Eretz Yisroel.  Inexplicably, Rashi does not explain why this happened.  Other mefarshim however seek to explain why Menashe would have wanted to join Reuven and Gad. provide underlying motivations. They are divided as to whether the tribe of Menashe never asked to be located there and was coerced to go, or whether they were asked after the tribes of Reuven and Gad made their request or independently at another time. It is often said that the parasha of Eliezer making the shidduch of Yitzhak and Rivkah is repeated in the Torah due to the great lessons to be learned contrasting that to entire masechtas of gemaras replete with halachos hang on a thread, i.e. one sentence or less in the Torah, but why would the Torah simply add this factoid about the half of the tribe of Menashe without interjecting any impetus for our education. It is not clear from the passuk whether its assignment to the East Bank of Yarden is a punishment or reward.  

 

        Some commentaries explain that the tribe of Menashe was deprived of the inheritance within the Land of Israel because of its role in the sale of Yosef.  In the story of Yosef and his brothers, Menashe was the one who placed the goblet in Binyamin's sack. Since this subsequently caused the brothers to tear their clothes, the tribe of Menashe was torn apart in retribution. Another perush says that since Menashe was descended from Shechem through Asnas bas Dinah, his imperfect bloodline prevented his a inheritance in the holy land in entirety; Reuvan and Gad in this view also were assigned outside the main land due to imperfections of their mother's zivug with Yaakov. Menashe is punished and not Ephraim who is also descended from Yosef because of the meaning of the name Menashe(forget), and since Yeravam descends form Menashe, which is bad, and because Joshua descends form Ephraim, which is good. Indeed the first tribe to be exiled was Menashe. [See details in Arizal Likutei Torah, Megale Amukos Igra D'Kala, Pardes Yosef, Shach al HaTorah, Eliyahu Kitov Sefer HaParshiyot, Hamodia 27 Tammuz 5764 Magazine]. These are explanations that seek the division of Menashe as something negative.

        Positive reasons are expounded upon by the same and other sources. Menashe is part of Yosef which mystically represents the sefirah of Yesod which is the force of connection and thus joins the two groups of tribes, those beyond Yarden and those within the Land of Israel together: it is the strength of this tribe that holds the nation together. Yosef and his sons possess this strength because they gained  experience in sustaining themselves religiously during galus in Egypt and thus can do the same outside the land now and in the future. Sons of Menashe were placed in Trans-Jordan to guide the naive shepherd tribes of Reuven and Gad. These tribes are seen as the mezuzahs of the land of Israel to replace the negative “door”-posts of Sichon and Og. Menashe is the tribe that requested to be in this land that was promised to Abraham, that of the three nations (besides the seven who were inside the Land). Reuven, Gad and Menashe, just as they did at the beginning of the conquest of Eretz Israel will be on the forefront of preparing the world for Moshcuach.

 

Sources:

Tzror HaMor, Smuchim L'ad (Eliyahu of Izmir), Ahavat Yonaton (Eibeshitz)Megale Amukos 131, Kisvay Haim Eliezer Bichovsky, Hamodia 27 Tammuz 5764 Magazine, Likutei Sichos (Chabad) volume 28 as paraphrased in http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/92830/jewish/Matos.htm,    http://www.moshiach.com/parshah/devarim/the-future-expansion-of-israel.php , see also http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/310891/jewish/Mezuzah-at-the-Gates-of-Israel.htm,  }, Sefer Mamarim Chabad 5729/5629 Mattos, See also http://www.aish.com/tp/i/moha/48922172.html http://www.ohrtorahstone.org.il/parsha/5765/matot65.htm http://www.sichosinenglish.org/books/chassidic-dimension-2/19.htmhttp://www.sichosinenglish.org/weekly/w10.htm]

        We may ask: What was the underlying historical reality? Did Menashe ask or was it something imposed on it? As alluded to above, the Torah is not a history book. The Torah does not tell us about many remarkable events in Jewish history. There is no mention of Avraham Avinu being tested by Nimrod throwing him into the fire as this was not a necessary step in his life to be recorded in the Torah. It is not clear when the Mishkan was commanded to be built’ many reasons are given  and one can learn a different lesson from each reason [see http://www.sichosinenglish.org/books/chassidic-dimension-2/19.htm]   

The Fifth Discipline by Peter Senge, subtitled the art and practice of the learning organization, proposes that there can be convergent problems which have a clear solution (like "Who stayed behind?" ) and divergent problems such as the motivation of Moshe and Menashe herein which do not have a simple answer, along the lines of a mathematical problem. But even complex differential equations, etc have a best fit among many, to the curve. Indeed as in out own day, a complex psyche that has multiple inputs that determine why a person acts the way they do in a particular situational confrontation. Some responses are active; some non-responses can even be classified as passive aggressive. This may very well be the motivation behind the ambiguity of the Torah with this event and why Rashi chose not to comment because as long as we are in galus, there are always multiple motives that remain hidden.

Hey, what happened to Maharat?

from Jerusalem Post...

 

Rabbanit? Rabbah? Maybe just plain Rabbi? What should be the title of an Orthodox woman who happens to also be a rabbi?

 Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of women who took part in a conference Monday organized by Kolech, an Orthodox feminist movement, were asked precisely that question.

The vote is a milestone.......

The excitement was palpable as women with hair coverings of various sizes, shapes and styles, dressed in long sleeves and short sleeves, wearing slacks, skirts and dresses, packed into the sessions offered throughout the day and thronged the hallways and classrooms of Jerusalem's Keshet school.

The afternoon Mincha prayer organized by the few men who came to the conference included a handful of women standing at the back of the classroom-turned-prayer-house. These women represented just a tiny fraction of the many hundreds who relaxed in the main hall during the lunch break. At the end of the prayer, three of the women joined a man in reciting the mourner's Kaddish.

......

Orthodox Women Rabbis... sorry, Maharats or whatever..

Women rabbis are not entirely new, it's just that they have been veiled. Lynn Kaye is the “Assistant Congregational Leader” at Shearith Israel in New York, Rachel Kohl Finegold is “Programming and Ritual Director” at Anshe Sholom B’nai Israel Congregation in Chicago, Elana Stein Hain is “Community Scholar” at Lincoln Square Synagogue in Manhattan, and Dina Najman is “Rosh Kehilla” of a small, unaffiliated Orthodox prayer group called KOE. These women give sermons, answering halakhic questions, and even co-officiate at a wedding. In addition, last year, the Hartman Institute caused a stir when they announced that they are opening a program for rabbinic ordination that will accept women applicants. Nishmat confers the title "Yoatsot (halachic advisors)" on specially prepared women who spend two years preparing to answer chailos in hilchos nidah. Women preparing to become Yoatzot Halacha are chosen for their extensive Torah scholarship, leadership ability, and deep religious commitment. They devote two years (over 1000 hours) to intensive study with rabbinic authorities in Taharat Hamishpachah. They receive training from experts in modern medicine and psychology, including gynecology, infertility, women's health, family dynamics and sexuality.

However when rabbi Avi Weiss conferred the title "Maharat" on Sara Hurwitz, he moved beyond what was done before. Mahranat stands for Manhigah Hilchotit Ruchanit Toranit. This title encompasses the three generally recognized rabbinic duties: Paskining shailos, providing religious inspiration and serving as an example of spiritual life, and teaching Torah. The breadth of the title and the clearly apparent strategy of conferring shemicha without calling it that name. Maharat received a bilingual document that looked suspiciously like semicha and the ceremony of granting her the title of "Maharat" looked and sounded just like conferral of semicha.

Ms. Hurwitz has prepared for her role well. According to JOFA IJewish Orthodox Feminist Alliance) Speaker's Bio: MaHaRa"T Sara Hurwitz is the Madricha Hilchatit, Ruchanit, and Toranit at the Hebrew Institute of Riverdale. She is also the Curricular Researcher and Writer for JOFA's Gender and Orthodoxy Curriculum Project. She graduated from Drisha Institute for Jewish Education?s 3-year Scholars Circle Program, received a B.A. from Barnard College, Columbia University, studied at Midreshet Lindenbaum in Israel, and served as a CLAL Fellow. Sara was co-director of Lights in Action, where she wrote curriculum, taught, and directed programs on college campuses. She has also taught at Drisha, the JCC of Manhattan, CLAL, and at various synagogues in the New York area. Sara continues to study halacha under the auspices of Rabbi Avi Weiss.

 

Not that this compares with the traditional education of a Posek. I don't know about that last sentence either. However, she is clearly a dedicated, charismatic and educated woman, with all the good intentions.

Just in case you missed the point, Ms. Hurwitz and other speakers, including Rabbi Maroof, one of the authors of the responsa supporting this step,  at this conferral ceremony clarified, explained and expounded that wink, wink - this is really a rabbinic degree,iIn Rabbi Weiss' words,  "a full member of clergy". The American Yated Neeman of this week wrote a a highly critical piece and correctly points out that the fiction and cover of Maharat being in some way different from a rabbinic ordination was blown by these speeches. The speakers said clearly and shouted out loud that they intend to give very woman, even a housewife in Bnei Brak an opportunity to become a congregational rabbi. The responsa permitting this can be found here.

Without getting into point by point discussion of the "teshuvot", I must point out that they are exceedingly faulty. They reason from aggada to halacha. They point to historical figures as precedent. They clearly argue for a position instead of anlyzing the issue. None of them fully discusses contrary sources, such as the immense literature of "Melekh vlo malka", even if only to refute them, as is cutomarily done by responsa literature, and all attempt tor reason from exceptions to the rule. Theseteshuvos as very scanty. Much of what they say is irrelevant to a fixed appointment and does not relate to what a Maharat actually does. As we all know, a teshuva is only as relevant as its facts. I do not disagree that a woman can teach... but can she be appointed as Maharat? THis is really the question! These teshuvos skip over that question. A rabbinic position is a position of authority and brings with it the ability to level fines and the power of Cherem and Nidduy and saying that it is not "srara" is an unsupportable assertion. A woman can be a judge, when the litigants agree,  but cannot be appointed as a judge over the community (R. Bin Nun believes that she can as long as the community is private and wants it).Yes, Devora judged Israel but she was exceptional, she judged ( or as Yerushalmi says, taught what halacha) those who came to her and did not issue hazmonos to those who did not, and all this means that the system has a place in it for exceptions. One cannot make exception into a rule!

Quite beyond this, for women to routinely become rabbis will fatally subvert the concept of tsnius, already almost forgotten and often ignored in Modern Orthodoxy. The sons of Eisav see nothing worng with allowing men and women to come close to the red lines in their interactions, but Semites build fences. Why do sons of Eisav not care? Because what they really believe is that crossing those lines is not so bad, nothing terrible. Post-exilic Judaism in on the contrary is characterized by deep and abiding conviction that Hashem's word is so important, so precious that any possibility of transgressing His word is a tragedy and that everything possible must be done to prevent transgressing halacha. In our day and age, interaction between sexes is the main battleground of these two contrary perceptions

Esau cared nothing for distinctions. He he was a self-made man and he disdained hierarchies and birthrights. He left his father's place and went to Seir, "away from Yakov his brother". So also did his civilizations ultimately rebelled against gender roles in the name of individual freedom and opprotunity. But this is not the Jewish way, if you will, not the Semitic way. Can one imagine Orthodoxy, or for that matter, Islam with no gender distinctions? I can't but the leaders of this misguided effort apparently can...and want to.

We are after all Semites. It is not natural for Semites to mix sexes, to have women stand on a bimah in front of men, to counsel men in secluded quarters and to serve as inspirational figures for men. Can you imagine?  Would not this naturally lead to the elevated feelings of reverence and love that a student feels for his spiritual teacher to become admixed with and tainted by laviscousness and impurity? And if not for some, than surely for many? The more impressive the woman, the greater the danger. And by the way, Devorah sat under a tree, so there was no yichud and the Maidel of Ludomir  and the daughter of Gaon Ali of Baghdad taught from behind the mechitza. Is that what is being done in Riverdale?

I do not for a moment doubt that those who lead this effort are well-intentioned, idealistic and see themselves as revolutionaries, leading the Orthodoxy into a better world. They are also mistaken. They are the vanguard of the coming schism - for once a Satmar Chossid or an Yeshiva man cannot drop into a Modern Orthodox shul to catch mincha or say Kaddish, we will have irrevocably split. This moment has already come for the Hebrew Institute of Riverdale, as soon as Maharat Hurwitz ascended the Bima for her first sermon.

Does culture matter?

Here is a link to the Jewish version of the dagger dance.

One usually associates sword dances with the warlike cultures of the Caucasus or Middle East. In contrast, we usually think of Jewish culture as being peace loving and abhorring violence and it is disorienting to find Jews performing knife dances at a wedding.  In fairness, it is a much milder version than this goyishe one.

But why should we be surprised? I remember seeing a teshuva from Mahram MiRottenberg on whether a Jew who causes damage when his lance pushed his opponent off a horse during a tournament is liable for damages. Apparenlty in his time, Jews imitated knights and conducted tornaments during weddings.

Overheard: On a date

Bochur: I enjoyed meeting you. I had a great time.

Maidel: Thank you. I did too.

Bochur: You know we have been talking about me for an hour. Let's talk about you.

Maidel: OK

Bochur: So... what do you think about me?