avakesh

Exegetical Motifs

Exegetical motifs.

Midrash can be mysterious. There are passages that are difficult to understand or to interpret in any kind of literal sense. One is forced to look for a deeper intent. Unfortunately, the intended, or at least, a plausible non-literal interpretation often seems elusive. There is a tendency to aimlessly flounder over the text, searching one's mind for some possible interpretation that would unlock its intended meaning. Let us discuss an approach that employs the concept of exegetical motif as a systematic aid to interpreting difficult Midrashic passages.

What is an exegetical motif?[1] In its simplest sense it is a statement, description or event that is stated in various midrashim to have occurred to different scriptural characters, on different occasions, and at different times. To make it work as an aid to interpretation, one must make an assumption that motifs serve as encoding devices and they mean to suggest or allude to the same idea or meaning in each different context. A review of different Midrashic texts that employ the same motif can guide us to its intended meaning, clearer in some source passages than in others.

Nothing clarifies better than an example; let us see an example. We focus on a passage in the middle of the Midrash Asara Harugei Malchus.[2]

When the brothers of Yosef saw those Ishmaelites, they brought him up from the pit naked and sold him so. The Holy One Blessed be He said: a tsadik like this shall stand naked before all? A kamea (amulet) hang around his neck. The Holy One Blessed be He sent Gabriel and he brought out of it a cloak. When the brothers of Yoself saw it, they said to the Ishmaelites: Return to us this cloak for we sold him to you naked. The Ishamelites said: We will not return it to you. (They argued) until the Ishmaelites added 4 pairs of shoes (to the price)...

As we attempt to explicate this midrash, we must note that the motif of an ornament that hangs around the neck is found in Midrash in reference to Abraham as well as Asnas.

A precious stone hang around the neck of Abraham, our Patriarch, so that any sick person that saw it, immediately was healed (Bava Bathra 16b)

Shchem violated Dina and she conceived and gave birth to Asnas. The sons of Issrael said to kill her, "for now all the people of the earth will say that there was immorality in the house of Yakov". What did Yakov do? He took a plate and wrote a holy name on it. He hung it around her neck and sent her out and she went....when Yosef descended to Egypt, he took her for a wife...(PRDR'E 38).[3]

A possible approach to these passages may take into account the pioneering mission of these three individuals, Abraham, Yosef and Asnas. All three of them left their homes and environment to be exiled in a different and spiritually inhospitable land. In this context, an ornament around the neck signifies a reminder of their origin and of the faith in which they were born.

An infant that is born with a kamea of writing or of herbs - is not a foundling (Kidushin 73b).[4]
A father who transgressed and did not redeem his son...some say that we write on a plate of silver that he has not been redeemed and we hang it on his neck so that he may know to redeem himself when he grows up (Yore Deah 305,15).

Let us now return to the midrash with which we started.

Yosef is now being exiled into a foreign land. We need to realize that there has not been a precedent until then of a member of the chosen family who has left the family and still remained within the unfolding "bechira process". Lot has left and dropped out, Ishmael has left and dropped out - so also Esau, so, they thought, also Asnas.

The midrash tells us that Yosef was clothed in a cloak that folded out of the amulet around his neck; in other words, he was clothed in armor that derived out of his awareness that he remains a part of the chosen nation, even if exiled. When the brothers saw this they were understandably distraught. That was definitely not the course that they expected his exile to take. They wished, perhaps assumed, that Yosef, that vain and flighty lad that they thought him to be, would only welcome, perhaps pursue an opportunity for adventure and to travel to faraway lands, as Esau and Lot had done before him. He would then leave and be lost to the Abrahamitic covenant. The spiritual grounding and fortitude that they perceived in him at that moment must have greatly discomfited them, for it threatened all of their facile assumptions about who Yosef was and what he was likely to become. No longer could they accept Yosef going to the land of Ishmael - it was too close to home, proximally as well as spiritually. What new mongrel, what monstrosity might Yosef create out of monotheism , if he holds on to it.They, therefore, insisted that his new masters sell him far, far away, to a truly inimical civilization.
Why four pairs of shoes? "...teaches us that Yosef was sold many times (Rashi to 37,28)". According to the verse he was sold four times : to traders, to Midianites, to Ishmaelites, and finally to Potiphar, the Egyptian. Hence, four additional pairs of shoes.

There are, of course, many other ways to approach this perplexing Midrashic passage. Yet, exegetical motifs, as a method can give a direction and bring order to the search for meaning in which we engage every time that a difficult passage comes our way. It can at least serve as a starting point for exploration and bring order and direction to an admittedly difficult task.

---

1 Some have seen exetegical motif as nothing more than a literary device; what's more, they claim that it represents an unthinking generalization from one Midrashic legend to another. This is, for example, how James Kugel uses this term in In Potiphar's House. As will become clearer in the subsequent discussion, that is not how I use this term here. Rather, exegetical motifs are deliberate symbolic and exegetical signs that are meant to guide us to a deeper interpretation.

2 The full text can be found in Torah Sheleima, Vayeshev 166.

3 This midrash is available in at least 9 versions, see Torah Sheleima, Mikets, 111

4 and is not subject to suspicion of bastardy.

Krekhtsing as a spiritual act..

Likkutei Muharan, §8, was delivered on Hanukkah 5563:

“I saw a menorah of pure gold, with a bowl on top of it” [Zechariah 4:2, which is the haftarah for Shabbat Hanukkah]

I) See how precious are the groans (called krekhts) of the Jewish person, for it is the fulness of the lacks. For by means of breath, which is the spirit of life, the world was created, as is written, “and with the breath of His mouth [He made] all their host” [Ps 33:6]. And the renewal of the world will also be by means of breath, as is written, “You send forth Your breath [or: Spirit], and they are created; You renew the face of the earth” [Ps 104:30]. And it is also the vitality of a person, for the life of a person is in his breath, as is written, “and he breathed into his nostrils the breath of life” [Gen 2:7]; and it is written, “all which had the breath of life in their nostrils” [Gen 6:17]. And as the wise men wrote, if breath is absent, than life is lacking.

We find, that the main vitality of all things comes from the aspect of breath. And when there is a lack in some thing, the main lack is in the aspect of life of that thing, which is the aspect of the living spirit of that thing, for the breath/spirit is that which sustains that thing.

And the groan is the extension of breath, and that is the aspect of “long suffering” [erekh apayim]—that is, that he extends His [his] spirit. Therefore, when a person moans due to a certain lack and draws out his breath, he extends the breath of life to that lack. For the essence of the lack is the removal of the spirit of life. Therefore, by means of the groan, he completes that which is lacking.

How do you spell that again...

We thank you Hashem... every day

Science and religion: clarifying basics

Any discussion of science and religion must begin with a definition of terms. This is because religion is ancient while science is new. What thousands years ago was a religious statement, a hundred years ago may have become subject of a scientific inquiry.  Conversely, what may a spiritual or moral teaching may be couched within a religion in scientific terms, as a statement of fact, as "this is how things work", as  natural history instead of how we would express it now, in religious terms. What I am trying to say is that many religious teachings are phrased as scientific assertion, which they are not, because that was the convention before science ever existed. If you accept this, the inescapable conclusion is that some conflicts can be resolved by translating ancient statements from a scientific idiom inappropriate to them to a more nuanced, specific terminology of our conceptual universe

Science has two meanings in .English. The first one is older one, meaning knowledge in general. This is the meaning religion employs. The newer meaning of the word "science" is that of a discipline that is built on a set of assumptions and utilizes induction and deduction within an experimental framework to make true statements about the natural world. It has a narrower scope than the science-knowledge of the first kind, which also aims to discover the truth about spiritual and moral spheres. To make the distinction clearer, in the future I will call this kind of knowledge, "knowledge-daas".

The situation is complicated by the fact that it is natural for scientists to venture beyond narrow scientific borders to speculate about topics inherently in the religious sphere. As human beings, they are curious about all areas of human endeavor and it is, perhaps, unfair to expect them not to use their knowledge to create theories about man and his life. In addition, there are sciences that study specifically man and his environment, sociology anthropology, linguistics,psychology etc. These sciences routinely consider spiritual and moral aspects of the human condition. Scientific and non-scientific methodology mix and intertwine in these sciences, i.e. they are a mixture of science and a type of religion.

Perhaps, this can help explain.

One can classify science as consisting of principles, methods and facts that these methods establish. Principles are assumptions, such as "unchangeable rules of nature exist", "it is possible to discover these rules, "scientific method can ascertain truth", "experimental truth is reproducible" etc. The method is induction from observable facts and deductions, experimental determination of facts, by the way of Hypothesis and Theory.

Religion consists of rituals, factual statements (i.e the world is not eternal, there were patriarchs and so on) and Methods. Method divides into Faith and Reason. Faith is the acceptance of factual statements on the basis of personal experience and/or tradition. Reason is the methodology of how statements of fact can be applied to the constantly changing personal and societal situations.

Judaism has a unique problem in that every Talmudic statement is potentially a "factual statement". As such, it becomes much more difficult to distinguish the borders of science and religion, or we can say, science and "knowledge-daas". It is this unique feature of Judaism that makes the inter-border conflicts between Science and Judaism so troublesome. Appreciation of this fact calls for a strategy of redefining borders and creating methods for reassigning as many religious statements as possible from the scientific sphere to their appropriate  settings within religion. The same needs to happen with scientific assertions about religious topics or history of religion, some of which may not be science at all, and others can be dismissed because they are corollaries of principles that religion does not share. This, to me, provides the most promising, if not the simplest approach for dealing with science-religion contradictions.

More on Corey Booker

In Haaretz

previous post here

Science in Yiddish

"E=mc2 sounded better in Yiddish

in Haaretz

"Science and Scholarship in Yiddish" will be the topic of a symposium to be held today at Tel Aviv University. "We picked a subject that people don't even know existed," Professor Leo Corry, head of the Cohn Institute for History and Philosophy of Science and Ideas, which is jointly sponsoring the symposium together with the Goldreich Family Institute for Yiddish Language, Literature, and Culture. The symposium marks the publication of a special issue of the journal Science in Context, edited at the Cohn Institute in Tel Aviv and published by Cambridge University Press. The journal contains essays by leading scholars in a field that rescues from oblivion a variety of scientific works published in Yiddish. .."

Science and Judaism

I have been requested to start a series on Science and Judaism on this blog. This is not a topic that particularly appeals to me, for it is a part of my past and not my future,  but an informed systematic discussion of the philosophical and spiritual ramifications of the conflict, or better put friction and cross boundary skirmishes,  between Science and Religion, would help many people who are confused and hurting and whose faith is wobbling in consequence. I have met many such people. Often the dignosis is spiritual rather than intellectual and inner change is the real answer, not philosophical discourse. However, intellect supports spirit and clear and thought -out answers can provide the respite and time for exploration of the inner space, where all answers, in truth lie.

I therefore reluctantly yield.

We will take up the general issues first and then discuss the particulars. By necessity, since I am not writing a treatise, the dsicussions will be brief - please feel free to comment and contribute.

Finally, for those who rely on "emunah peshutah" and come to this blog for inspiration - please skip these posts. This is not what you need - look above it!

Talking to children about God

by Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz

More on Rachel and Leah

A deeper perspective on Rachel and Leah needs to take into account and explain one Kabbalistic fact. Surprisingly, in Kabbalah, Leah is higher and superior to Rachel. The pirtzuf of Zeir Anpin is composed of a higher part, Isroel Sabba and below it Yacov. Wrapped around them is Leah above and Rachel below. Leah is generally facing Isroel Sabbah's back whereas Rachel is sometimes front to back and sometimes front to front  to Yakov (see Shaar Hakkavonos, Krias Shema). Without getting sidetracked by these intricate ideas, one thing is clear - Leah is higher than Rachel. That is not the perception we get from the Chumash, where Rachel seems to be more valued than Leah.

Michtav M'Eliahu suggests that Yakov and Isroel represents that Jacob as he functioned in the lower and higher realities respectively."Also Rachel and Leah correspond to two particulars in Divine Service.. Rachel. "the beautiful of form and beautiful of visage" (in the words of the Zohar - the revealed reality) is the revelation of God's Glory in this lower world. Leah stands aside (the eyes of Leah are weak - the world of the hidden) - her portion is what is revealed in the sense of the higher world, the hidden one (2:218)". The Artscroll Chumash adds derives from this an appealing idea. When Yakov saw Rachel he immediately knew that she was his partner in this world. The same was not the case with Leah. She was his partner in spirit but at that stage of his growth, he did not yet see it. Rachel was she whom he needed at the time, but Leah was his destiny for eternity. It is she who produced Yehudah and Royalty and Levi and the Priesthood. So often we see only with eyes of flesh. Rachel was right for him as he was, Leah was for him as he was going to be. So often we rail and complain against Divine injustice in not giving us something that we want, forgetting that God, in His kindness, may be instead giving us what we need.

The Lubavitcher Rebbe (quoted in the Gutnick Chumash) had a different approach. He saw Rachel as representing tsaddikim gemurim, hence her beauty of appearance and stature. Leah, on the other hand, represents Baalei Teshuva. That is why she cried a lot. It is for this reason that, as Rashi points out, everyone thought that she was an appropriate wife for Eisav. Underlying this approach probably is the Kabbalistic evidence that we discussed above and the statement (Brochos 34) that in the place in which Baalei Teshuvah stand, tsaddikim gemurim cannot stand.