avakesh

Hitting Rock Bottom -Korach

The Torah is written on many levels, among them the literary and metaphorical. We may not always understand the metaphors it uses, but they, nevertheless, can "get into our kishkes", affecting us on the symbolic, experiential and emotional levels, so that an idea penetrates, diffuses and dwells in out subconscious and, affects and shapes how we understand and interpret other Torah passage. Stories do that, images and phrases do it. 

Among such devices is, I believe, the swallowing of Korach and his congregation by the earth.

On the face of it, the earth opening its mouth and swallowing the unruly rebels is remarkable and a riveting image. As we discussed before, and based on Mordechai Breuers work. the story of Korach is a split screen. On one scree, there stands the grouping of characters around Korach: on the other screen is the one led by Dosan abd Aviram. In one wants power, the other one egalitarianism in Divine Service. One is around Korach's tent, the other by he Altar. The two movies, however, intertwine and bleed into the frames of one another. Most importantly, they dies in two different ways. Korach is swallowed by the earth and the the others are consumed by fire. 

What it the metaphor of the earth opening up and swallowing Korach and his congregation? There are, of course, many, but one stands out.

The metaphor of falling through the earth, may I suggest, represents the concept that goes beyond  "hitting rock bottom". 

When a person falls,he or she tend to eventually hit rock bottom. It may be an alcoholic, thrown out by his wife and children, having lost his job, vomiting in a dark hotel room after another binge, an addict waking up where he never imagined he would ever be, or milder variations of such, that make an individual confront that there is no where to go lower than this, and the only way now is up.

“Rock bottom became the solid foundation on which I rebuilt my life.”  J.K. Rowling

But what about those who refuse to acknolwedge that they hit rock bottom, who persist on the same way, who insist on staying where there is  no lower where to go?

Korach was warned. His base motivations were reveled to him, but he refused to turn back. Within a forthnight he went from a respected elder to a despicable rebel. He hit rock bottom. He had nowhere else to go but up. But he did not!

The metaphor in the parsha is telling us that, even where one seems to have to hit rock bottom but refuses to go up, and there are appears to be no lower than he can go, if the does not catch himself, he will find that there is yet lower where to go.

The solid rocky ground can open up the gehennom under its seemingly solid surface, and there is much lower than one can go!

The alternative to not going up from the very bottom is not staying there, but going even lower. Where one thinks that it cannot get worse, the ground open up, and unimagined depths of depravity reveal themselves. It teaches us that one must, must go up for if not, there is much lower yet to go.

 

 

Torah and the Spirit of the Times

Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them: I am the Lord, your God.

ב. דַּבֵּר אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאָמַרְתָּ אֲלֵהֶם אֲנִי יְ־הֹוָ־ה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם:

 

Rashi: Rabbi [Yehudah Hanassi]  says: “It is openly known before Him, that they would eventually be scourged by [transgressing the laws of] immoral relations, in the days of Ezra. Therefore, [concerning these laws,] God came to them with the decree: I am the Lord, your God! You should know Who is placing these decrees upon you-the Judge Who exacts retribution (אלֹקִים), but Who is faithful also to pay a reward (ה ) ! ”- [Torath Kohanim 18:138]"

Rashi is saying something very strange! He appears to explain that this verse was written in the Torah not for the generation in which it was given but for generation of Ezra, many centuries later. How do we wrap our heads around a supposition that an entire verse in the Torah was not understandable at the time it was given, but would only be understood at the time of Ezra.

With Hashem's help, as I was mulling this question I was listening to a lecture by Rabbi Asher Kushnir (Toldos Yeshurun) in Russian entitled, "Torah, science and aunt Bella". On Bella, in case you're interested, represents a ype of pseudo-scientific anti-religious critic immediately recognizable to any one familiar with Russian Jewish culture. The speaker is engaging, intelligent, and well informed.

Rabbi Kushnir discusses the question of why would the all-knowing Creator make a world that contains apparently unnecessary or redundant creatures. To explain it, he gives an analogy of a long distance spaceship, that's travels to distant stars. Its mission consists of three stages. First, it has to leave the earth and guide itself toward he destination star. Second it must sustain its inhabitants during the multigenerational journey. Finally it contains equipment and materials that would be necessary for landing and settlement of distant planets.

Does it not stand to reason that the participants of each one of the three stages will think that there spaceship contains matériel that is extraneous and duplicative? Ihose who leave the earth and direct themselves toward the stars will find much during this stage that they do not need. Similarly, those who maintain the ship in the middle of the journey will find equipment from the past and machinery and instruments for the future that they will perceive as not needed. Finally, in the final stage, the third-generation will wonder why they have so many things inside the spaceship that seem to serve no constructive purpose for what they require.

The speaker goes on to relate this to what each generation sees on their earth itself. A telephone or computer would've been totally superfluous a few hundred years ago. On the other hand, much of the natural world seems to us incongruent and extraneous to our modern lives. Many of its phenomena are against or do not speak to the Gestalt of the modern world

If so, the same could be true of the Torah. The Torah can contain phrases or passages that we do not understand but will understand in the future. This is certainly true of prophecies, many of which have not yet come to pass. However, by extension, it also may be true of concepts and thought processes that appear to us to conflict with the world as we see it, but after Redemption,  will make perfect sense.

Supernatural or Scientific Stick ? by Dr. Chaim Gershon

 

Shemos Beshalach Chapter 15

25. So he cried out to the Lord, and the Lord instructed him concerning a piece of wood, which he cast in into the water, and the water became sweet. There He gave them a statute and an ordinance, and there He tested them.
There He gave them: In Marah, He gave them some sections of the Torah so that they would busy themselves with them, namely [they were given the laws governing] the Sabbath, the red cow, and laws of jurisprudence. — [from Mechilta and Sanh. 56b]

 

Science versus Torah is a misnomer and this week’s parasha Beshalach explains how.

 

There are various mefarshim that connect this piece of wood mystically to the Tree of Life, Etz HaChaim and Etz Hadas, first and foremost being Sefer Ha Bahir and many other sources such as Ishbitz (Beis Yaakov) and Chabad.

 

 

 

More modern explanations give scientific explanations that explain that a bitter substance added to bitter water does not sweeten it by causing a miracle but by producing a chemical reaction,the net result being is sweet water via ion exchange, taste modifiers etc. The most interesting is by Nobel Prize Chemist Ronald Hoffman in Old Wine, New Flasks, in a chapter devoted specifically to this.

 

See as well the following non-traditional explanations:

http://www.nesc.wvu.edu/old_website/ndwc/ndwc_dwh_1.html

 

http://www.articlesbase.com/online-education-articles/a-miracle-of-prophet-moses-or-a-chemistry-connection-661768.html

http://books.google.com/books?id=IM-yNiUXwO4C&pg=PA271&lpg=PA271&dq=bitter+water+marah+scientific&source=bl&ots=iEb_rJmx2u&sig=Wc10FRMrViM5_D0qcYO_59gipDk&hl=en&sa=X&ei=fG4pT_75Ioba0QHKtum8Ag&ved=0CFUQ6AEwBzgK#v=onepage&q=bitter%20water%20marah%20scientific&f=false

 

http://www.borhatorah.org/editions/10/abstract-goldberger.htm ( this one is essentially Pseudoscience)

 

 

There has been attempts to reconcile these two approaches.

 

 

It occurred to me that Rashi in the next passuk is not referring to the two types of laws that the Jews were given at Marah, the supernatural chukim and logical mishpatim, see here and here,

but to the chok and mishpatim of the previous passuk. Perhaps it is saying that there are the two types of explanations of the piece of wood making the bitter waters sweet, the supernatural and the scientific! Thus “Science” is one of the facets of Torah!

After I made this connection, I figured someone must have said this idea before and I made a scientific/supernatural reach to the seforim shelf. Lo and behold, and the first perush I opened, Abarbanel gives a commentary consistent with my perush! Nachshoni points out that this approach  taking "chok umishpat" not as two separate entiies but a thing that is both a chok and mishpat at the same time was first used was first expressed by Rabbenu Bachaye who stated that the wood/herbs might have worked as either a chok or mishpat and Chasam Sofer uses the same approach.

 

Avakesh: I believe that this approach was also used by R. Yosef Engel who quoted Chazal that the mitzva of Kibud Abv V'Eim was given in Marah(Sanhedrin 56b. How did they know that? Because Kibbud Av V'Eim includes both rational aspects (mishpat) and super-rational aspects(chok). For example, there is the obligation of grattitude(hakaras hatov) while they are alive, which is rational, and of honoring parents after their death, which is super-rational (chok). The source of such usage is Bareishis 47:29, where Rashi explains, "Chessed V'Emes" as "Chessed shel emes", in other words, something which is at the same time, kindness and truth. Another example is in Bareishis 3:16, "Etsvoneich V'Haroneich". This is explained in Dikdukei Rashi by YitzhakAvineri, who calls it "Vav Hasmichus".

 

Ethrog in Hezekiah's palace

For many years it has been scholarly dogma that Esrog did not grow in Eretz Yisrael in Bilbical times and, therefore, the identification of "goodly fruit" with Ethrog was post-biblical. Now comes evidence that Esrog was grown in Judea during the First Temple period, here.

See here on Ethrog in Josephus.

This reminds me of the "camel" controversy. It was similarly claimed for many years that the story of Abraham and his camels msut be an anachronism because camels were not yet domesticated in the Bronze Age. This also turned out to be incorrect. See also here.

The lesson is that we must approach scholary dogmas with a good measure of scepticism.

Misplaced Grammatical Plague By Chaim Gershon

 

Vaera 8:17

 

17. For if you do not let My people go, behold, I will incite against you and against your servants and against your people and in your houses a mixture of noxious creatures, and the houses of Egypt will be filled with the mixture of noxious creatures, as well as the land upon which they are.

יז. כִּי אִם אֵינְךָ מְשַׁלֵּחַ אֶת עַמִּי הִנְנִי מַשְׁלִיחַ בְּךָ וּבַעֲבָדֶיךָ וּבְעַמְּךָ וּבְבָתֶּיךָ אֶת הֶעָרֹב וּמָלְאוּ בָּתֵּי מִצְרַיִם אֶת הֶעָרֹב וְגַם הָאֲדָמָה אֲשֶׁר הֵם עָלֶיהָ:

 

The following is a quote.

 

“ומלאו בתי מצרים את הערב וגם

האדמה אשר הם עליה”

“The houses of the Egyptians shall be full of the mixture of animals and also the ground upon which they are.” (8:17)

QUESTION: The words “and also the ground upon which they are” seem superfluous?

ANSWER: Among the animals of the world there is an extremely rare one found in the wild jungles of Africa and known as the “adnei hasadeh.” It has the face of a person, long hands that reach to its knees, and a very unusual relationship to its habitat. It is always connected to the ground through a string that comes out of its navel. Although it is very dangerous and kills anyone who comes within its reach, there is one way to capture it: Shooting arrows at the string which connects it to the ground. As soon as it becomes detached, it screams bitterly and dies immediately. Hashem brought upon the Egyptians a mixture of all the animals from the entire world, including the strange and vicious “adnei hasadeh.” In order that they not die before arriving in Egypt, they were brought together with the earth to which they were connected. Therefore, Moshe told Pharaoh, “The homes of the Egyptians shall be filled with the mixture of wild animals and also ‘adnei hasadeh’ will come, together with the ground (earth) upon which they are [attached]."

See:

     פנים יפות, ועי’ כלאים פ”ח מ”ה ברע”ב ותפארת  ישראל

 

Sforno reads this passuk that the noxious creatures will be fill the houses and also the earth.

There are a number of mefarshim who notice that this extraneous descriptive phrase. "The earth on which they are",  should modify the closer object and not the overall passuk and they suggest various answers.

 See

http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=38977&pgnum=22

 

http://www.ou.org/ou/print_this/34577

 

http://www.neryaakov.org/torah.php?id=149&action=show_article&article_type=2&page=2

(quoting the GR”A which is also summarized in Pardes Yosef)

(Avakesh adds: Netsiv explains that the plague of Arov starting from the Pharaoh's house and then involved his servants' houses and the houses of the other Egyptians. From there it spread into the land of Egypr - hence, "also the land on which they (the servants) live upon".)

 

This exotic animal, "Adnes Hasadeh", whose existence is not observed today is also contended historically:

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=_1fdxxS26RYC&pg=PA307&dq=adnei+hasadeh&hl=en&sa=X&ei=GoQUT6SfD8KK0QGzhom2Aw&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=adnei%20hasadeh&f=false

 

http://www.rationalistjudaism.com/2012/01/parenting-dilemmas-of-rationalist.html

 

http://mytorahthoughts.wordpress.com/2010/12/21/the-mysterious-adnei-hasadeh/

 

http://parsha.blogspot.com/2011/10/adnei-hasadeh-and-earth-mouse-in.html

 

http://www.torahscience.org/natsci/animal.htm

 

However still other mefarshim (Midrash Yonason [Eibeshitz], Maharil Diskin, Panim Yafos http://www.dafyomi.co.il/bechoros/insites/be-dt-009.htm and  http://www.dafyomi.co.il/parsha/vaera2.htm)  offer the answer that the dirt from these animals’ homelands accompanied them so that they would be comfortable and confident why carrying out the plague according to HaShem’s will.

 The Rogachover http://www.hebrewbooks.org/22177 p15 ( p.124 in pdf)  (translated in Torah Tavlin 5765) concurs and also states that not only animals but also plants yield better produce when in their own earth. Also quoted online is a similar proposal to clarify the odd language of the passuk. http://www.ladaat.net/siteimages/fl_4f1814661e8b5.pdf

 

One wonders why an animal that is attached to the ground had to be invoked to explain this possuk when so many simpler answers are possible. Indeed, even the explanation that the animals had to be in their comfort zone to best carry out their mission is itself is out of the comfort zone of many people who hear it. Sometimes the literal reality is not to be taken literally!

Avakesh comments: Tiferes Yisrael on Kelayim thinks that Adnei Hasadeh is Orangutan. A number of sources are collected in Nathan Slifkin's, "Mysterious Creatures, p. 134-138. In his introduction, he also discusses various approaches to aaggados about animals that do not exist in our times and for which there is no evidence that they ever existed.

 

 

Eliezer: Servant, negotiator, dad.

There is a well known question on verse Genesis 24:39.

Eliezer Abraham's servant goes to Abraham's family to find a wife for Isaac. As he tells the family how he met Rebecca he says the following:

Genesis 24:39

And I said to my master: Perhaps (Hebrew "uly) the woman will not come back with me?'

Rashi says: The word 'Perhaps' (in Hebrew 'uly') is written without a 'vav'. Eliezer had a daughter and was looking for an excuse so Abraham would say to him and turn to him to have his daughter (marry Isaac). (But) Abraham said to him: "My son is blessed and you are cursed and one who is cursed cannot cleave to one who is blessed!"

 

However, the same word is found in the original telling of the story, Genesis 24:5. There it says "And the servant said to him: Perhaps(uly) the woman will not want to come back with me to this land," etc. In that verse the Hebrew word "ulie" is written full, with the 'vav' - so the reading 'ailie' cannot be read into it there. Nevertheless, this is the original place and  Rashi does not say anything. If Eliezer's intention was to indicate to Avraham, "Hey, I also have a daughter - why not her?", this is where Rashi should have made his comment. The question is an early one, we find Minchas Shai asking it and referring us to Gur Arye. Gur Arye says that Eliezer made his desire explicit for Lavan and Besuel so us to be able to share with them Avraham's answer to him - that he is of blessed stock. Devek Tov answers that Eliezer did was inhibited from saying it clearly to Avraham but not to Lavan and Besuel.

An answer suggested by Reb Mendel of Kutzk, (1787-1859) is that when a person is entangled in his own personal desires he cannot see them or be aware of them - if he were aware, his conscious awareness would alert him to the unreasonableness of the thought and he would drop it. Therefore it must remain hidden from his awareness. But once the person is not in the situation he has some distance from it, and then he allows himself to be aware of his inner desire. So when Eliezer was talking directly to Abraham he was in the throes of his desire, it was thus out of his awareness and the verse does not hint at it. But when he spoke later to Rebecca's family he had the distance which allowed him to be aware of his personal involvement. So it was only there that the verse hinted at it.

Another Answer suggested by the Magid of Dubna, (1740-1804). by way of parable, also offers an insight into how people work. Since Eliezer had his high hopes for his daughter to marry Isaac, his doubts about the suitability of Rebecca for Isaac were then subtly conveyed in the way he spoke to the family. This would make the family wonder if it was a good idea to have their daughter marry Isaac. The Torah expresses Eliezer's desires here (and not earlier) by the spelling of the word 'ulie' making it look like "eilaii"(to me.) because it was only in the conversation with Rebecca's family that it would have the desired effect.

My discomfort with these two latter answers is that they minimize the stature of Eleiezer, of whom Bareishis Rabba(Ch. 59) says: :"Hashem blessed Avraham with everything - that he ruled over his inclination.....His servant(Eliezer) who ruled overything everything of his: that he ruled over (his ) inclination". Surely a person who rules over his evil inclination would be aware and rise to the challenge of controlling unworthy thoughts. Chazal compare Eliezer to Avraham;s self-mastery; would not such a person recognize his negiyos and act honorably and with integrity. I am aware that a very different view of Eliezer is presented in Pirke D'Rabbi Eliezer 16:3, where he was initially Nimrod's slave, was suspected of immoral behavior with Rivka and is identified with Og, King of Bashan. Nevertheless, Rashi is based on GenesisRabba with its positive view of Elezer.

There are many answers to this question. Based on an understanding of the science of negotiation, I offer another one.

The source for Rashi is Bareishis Rabba 59:9. There Eliezer is called Canaanite, after Hoshea 12:8: "Cannaanite, in his hands scales of deceit". Eliezer is said to have attempted to deceive Avraham because he wanted to bring about that his own daughter marry Yitzhak.

Now, in what way was Damascean(from Damascus) Eliezer( Gen. 15:2), a Canaanite? He must have been from Aram as it says, "for the head of Aram is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is Rezin"(Ishaya 17:1).

You can say that Rashi's reference to Eliezer being cursed refers to him being a slave, and being a slave is a cursed state, for Canaan was cursed with being a slave to his brothers. A slave of any nationality is, in a sense, a Canaanite. However, there may be another, somewhat more subtle connection to Noah's curse. Netsiv to Genesis 24:3 and especially to 12:6 shares with us a very important point. He posits that descendants of Shem or another nation who lived in the Land of Canaan, for Canaan at that time was conquering the Land from the sons of Shem. As such, anyone who lived in that land was culturally a Canaanite, even if her family initally came from a different stock. It's like a resident of Meah Shaarim who would under no circumstance marry an American, no matter how frum he may be. Being an American indelibly taints a prospective suitor, even if it not clearly recognizable at the time.

But let's get back to the term Canaanite. In Tanach, Canaanites are merchants and traders. Presumably, Israelites were farmers, who toiled their land and surviving Canaanites, who was dispossessed by them and had no land of their own, became itinerant mechants. Even at earlier times, Yehuda married the daughter of a Cannanite man, read trader. As we said, Canaanites were just then conquering and spreading through the Land. In areas they did not conquer, they traded, and so Yehuda's father-in-law was caleld a canaanite withotu actually being one.

Here are some proof verses:

Wail, O inhabitants of the Mortar, For all the people of Canaan will be silenced; All who weigh out silver will be cut off(Zephania 11:1).

 "Cannaanite, in his hands scales of deceit"(Hoshea 12:8)

Who hath taken this counsel against Tyre, that was formerly crowned, whose Cannanites were princes, and her traders the nobles of the earth?(Ishaya 23:8).

And , of course, a posuk we all know and love.

She made fine linen, and sold it; and gavegirdle unto the Canaanite(Mishle 32).

So, Eliezer was a mmmerchant, and what do merchants do? They bargain!

Eliezer was in negotiations for Rivka. A task that the negotiator must perform is to assess whether there is genuine desire to make a deal and the other side is being difficult to extract concessions, or is there no desire to achieve an agreement and the negotiations are merely for show. In the former, a wise negotiator may deliberately show frustration or threaten to stop trying to bring the two parties together. He may even hint that his own interests are not in working hard to make a deal come together but, being an honorable man, he would try, but not very hard.

This is what Elezer did. By hinting to Lavan and Besuel that he would rather marry his own daughter to Yitzhak, which he had no intention of doing, he prodded them to immediately agree to the shidduch. This is why Lavan is so uncharacteristically pliable at this time. He doesn't even ask for a dowry, very unusual for him, as we know of him in connection to Yakov. This is why Rashi brings it only in the second retelling of the conversation with Avraham - because it was a negotiating ploy and only applied that time.

However, though well intentioned and even helpful, this was a misleading act. This is why Chazal faulted Eliezer for it and called him a Canaanite, meaning a merchant. Avraham himself would never engage in such tactics, but Eliezer did.

 

 

High Priest's bell found.

A pomegranate of gold with a bell inside it has been found in a 2000 year-old sewer in Jerusalem. It could be from the hem of the Cohen Godol's Meil.

 

Here is the view from the bottom.

 

In proportion:

 

There is a tongue inside of the (paamon)bell so that it produces a sound when the wearer of the bell walks. We also see that the bell was closed. These hang in some kind of association with cloth rimonim (pomegranates)

There are two major ways in which the paamon and rimon are envisioned by commentators. Rashi(Shemos 28:33) says that the paamonim were like zagin (seeds), presumably oval shaped objects with tongues inside of them, like our bells. He does not specify if they were open like the bellls in our day, or closed, like in the bell that was found in Yerushalaim. The bells were interspersed with pomegranates. The noise was not produced by paamonim and rimonim striking each other but by the tongues within the paamonim. Rashbam seems to understand that there were no tongues within the bells but they struck each other across the pomegranates and produced noise that way. I imagine that this could be accomplishd by hanging them from a shorter or longer longer string than the pomegranates, like in the illustration on the right.

 

Ramban says that paamonim were inside closed rimonim and there were tongues inside which produced noise when the tongues struck the inside of the paamonim. The sound would have been quite muted,

There were a total of 72 rimonim with paamonim( with their tongues) inside them, 36 on the front hem and 36 on the back hem of the Meil. Pomegranates enveloped bells with tongues inside them.

In Shemos 39:25 it says that, "you should put paamonim with (Btoch) harimonim", which can mean both "in between" "and "inside". Both Rashi and Ramban are supported by this verse.

The number of the bells is not clear. In Shemos 28:34, Ramban says that there were 72. This comes from Zevachim 88b, where there is also a view that there were 36, eighteen on the front and 18 on the back.

Targum Yonasan in Tetzaveh says that there were 72 but in Pikudei he says that there were 71.

About six months ago, I read in the (anonymous)column 'Mishnas Chaim" in a local throwaway, without attribution, an intersting explanation of this disrepancy. He says that initially, in Tetsaveh, the bells were inside the pomegranates and there were 72 of them. Pikudei presents things as they were after the Sin of the Golden Calf. Many things changed becasue of them. One of these changes was that the bells became placed in between the pomegranates. In this arrangments there would have been 72 pomegranates and only 71 bells.

After the Golden Calf, there was a need for a greater revelation and the bells and their call were on the outside and less muted.

 

 

Documentary Hypothesis and Betrayal

Betrayals abound. Some might say that betrayal is as much a part of human condition as loyalty.

There are, I think, three types of betrayals.

One is when one party to the convenant does not give the other party what it deserves. A a husband who does not give his wife the respect that she deserves, or a citizen who, in JFK's immortal words, asks what his country can do for him and not what he can do for his country, betrays by omission.

Another kind of betrayal is an exchange. A husband who gives his affection to a woman other than his wife commitsinfidelity, irrespective of whetheradultery was committed, or a soldier who spies for another country to the detriment of his own,are egregious betrayers.

These are pretty clear.

There is, however, another kind of betryal. It is a pitiful and nebachykind, one in which a person becomes a traitor without ever recognizing it. A husband who flirts with another woman but denies that there is anything wrong with just a little flirting, a Jew who supports the Palstinian cause citing Jewish ideals, deserve pity as much as contempt. To betray and not even know it is sad; it is sad!

A Jew who adopts the historical-scientifc approach to Scripture commits that kind of betrayal.  

To explain why this is so, I begin with a few assumptions.

1.I contend that there is no "correct" way to read any text and that multiple interpretations are legitimate. Neither is there an understanding that is divorced from method and what determines method is the tradition of the interpreter. How one reads a text depends on what assumptions one makes and what background informs the reader. This is, by the way, the standard approach in many disciplines, associated with Hans George Gadamer. Therefore reading Torah like a Biblical critic is not in any way truer or superior to reading it out of the ArtScroll.

.2.If no particular method is more true than another, how should one select a method? Well, based on one's background, of course. Inother words, the choice of the interpetative tradition is based on moral adn nto technical considerations. Iit is more moral to be loyal than to exchange one's inheritance for another's. There is a Jewish way of approaching the Scriptures and there is a Christian one. Jews see Bible as one kind of a book and Christians as another. This is where the betrayal comes in. When a Jew uses a method of interpretation that is essentailly a Christian one, a betrayal has occurred. When a Jew reads the Bible like a Christian, he has turned his back on this heritage and tradition. It is even worse when the interpreter does not even recognize that he has switched sides.

I guess you see where I am going. I contend that Biblical Criticism is a Christian or one of Christian methods of interpreting the Old Testament and a Jew who holds the Documentary Hypothesis as revealing the "truth" about the "Old Testament" has committed betrayal, whether he realizes it or not, whether he recognizes it or not.

In what way is the Documentary hypothesis Christian? Let me cound the ways. The following is based on Umberto Cassuto's discussion(pp.xvi-xvii).

1.Wellhausen's understanding of the Bible was informed by the evolutionary and Hegelian concepts in which there is a continuous gradual progression from the primitve to the highly evolved but there is also a process of decline and deterioration adn then revival. In this view, Judaism was a precursor of Christianity and when Judaism detriorated into empty and mindless legalism, Christianity came and  Spirit replaced Law. As such, sections that deal with Law and ritual are late and represent deterioration of Judaism. That is why he dated the Pentateuch to the post-exilic period (something that no serous scholar any longer believes).

2.Old-time Biblical critics said that there are four essential documents out of which the Torah was stitched together, just like there are four Gospel, the three synoptic gospels and the Gospel of John.

3.For Christians, religion is not about a book or about a way of life. Christianity is about Jesus and everything else is there solely to provide a theologically "correct" account of who he was. Scriptures are there only so that Christians can teach the correct doctrine. This is a very surprising feature of this unique religion for Jews and Moslems, for whom religion is about a way of life and Scripture is holy in a way that Christians do not recognize. When they speak of the "inerrant word of G-d", they mean that the substance of what Bible teaches about Jesus (and it is all about him) is true, not that the text itself is from G-d or that it is intrinsically holy.

I remember once listening to the radio and a Moselm convert to Christianity was talking about how two of the things he initially found most offensive about Christian worship was the mixing of the sexes during worship and that the congregants put their Bibles on the floor after reading from it. A Moslem would not lower the Koran below his belt and Jewish Law prohibits sitting on the same bench as the Torah. To us, it is a holy book. To Christians, it is not holy in itself and the text is not literally given by G-d. The text is only important inasmuch as it presents the correct doctrine; it has not intrinsic value. This is why slicing and dicing the Scriptural text is fine for a Christian but an anathema for a Jew. The Jew sees the Torah as a Divine document that partakes of the holiness of its Giver. For a Jew to adopt the historico-critical method is the on some deep level to adopt Christian assumptions about the Bible. This is a betrayal . This must be understood.

4.One more point, and it's not from Cassuto.

The historical-critical approach sees each book of the Bible, and sometimes even each chapter or sentence, as presenting different points of view that come out of different religious groups with disparate theologies and perspectives. Somehow, at some time, someone cobbled all these different perspectives and documents together. Why didn't the Redactor eliminate contradictions? Because the culture of the times did not see anything wrong in contradictions since the goal was to preserve a record of different communities and views ( I know that this is weak and I know that you recognize it too). With this assumptions, the end to reconcile disappears, and with it, the drive to think deeply about the Biblical text.

This approach has a great deal of explanatory power because of the way we think nowadays. The reductionist approach has yielded great benefits in the scientific sphere. The price that we paid for that is atomization and scattering of focus and perspective.The reductionist scientific approach makes is appealing to those who grew up adn are educated in it, and we all have been impacted by it. This is why it is not questioned beyond the traditionalist circles. But for a spiritual person, it is immensely harmful because it has not focus and no "larger picture". It leaves us without meaning as we desperately attempt to see the forest behind the trees.

It does not explain the most remarkable and obvious truth about the BIble - its unparalleled power of ideas, its ability over and over again to change societies and redirect human history, its ability to claim allegiance of millions and millions in generation after generation. In short, it misses exactly what is unique and central to the Bible - its religious potency. It is like looking at Michelangelo's the Last Supper and seeing only what is on the plates. In short, it misses THE point.

Traditional interpretations are focused precisely on the sacredness of Scripture, not only on its text. Certain kinds of interpretation, the ones that are not consistent with the message that a particular religious community subscribes to, cannot possibly be true, because it is not about the Bible ' as we know it". On the other hand, they cannot be "proven" by one community to another. Most believers, however, do not look for proof, they are in pursuit of meaning.

Some might counter by saying: "I don't care. It makes sense and what do I owe to Judaism anyway?". Unfortunately, loyalty to one's people and one's heritage is a concept that is rapidly becoming incomprehensible to the new generation of American Jews. Russian and Iranian Jews understand it so much better.

The answer is that his question had been considered before.

Certain philosophers in the Middle Ages raised a question. In their view, philosophy teaches the truth and religion is at best a shortcut to that truth for the uninitiated. If so, is there anything wrong with a Philosopher switching from one religion to another, if more convenient? They answered that a philosopher should not change religions because he must remain loyal to the religion in which he was born. Would it be that all Jews understood this!

 

Pshat will out!

I have gradually come to understand that even when Chazal appear to abandon pshat in a particular verse, often, though not always, what they abandon is a pshat interpetation of a particular verse but not the halacha that actually comes out of the pshat in that verse. Of course, sometimes they tell us explicitly that a certain interpretation is incorrect and substitute their more complex and less simple intepretation for pshat. However, more comonly they say that the verse means something else than what it appears to be saying, ignoring the pshat but not dismissing it. In such cases, very often the pshat is still reflected in halacha, but it may not be traced to this specific verse. It may be connected as a drash to yet another verse, or it may be introduced as an anonymous halacha of Torah she baal Peh.

Let's look at an example. 

A verse in Parashat Shemini appears to forbid one from becoming tamei at any time.  The Torah writes concerning non-kosher animals, "you may not eat their flesh, nor shall you touch their carcass; they are impure to you" (Vayikra 11:8).

 The gemara (Rosh Hashana 16b), however, interprets this verse compeltely differently and in a way that can only be called drash. Rabbi Yitzchak says that only kohanim are forbidden to become "tomei meit" (impure as a result of contact with a corpse).  If so, the verse as referring to a special halakha related only to the three regalim (pilgrimage festivals) - Pesach, Shavuot and Sukkot: "A person is obligated to purify himself on the festival, as it says 'You shall not touch their carcass.'" The reason would appear to be that these are the times of pilgrimage, when every person ttouches or eats kodashim.

 The Rambam codifies this halakha of Rabbi Yitzchak: "All Yisrael are commanded to be pure every festival, for they must be prepared to enter the Mikdash and eat 'kodashim' (the festival sacrifices), as it says in the Torah, 'You shall not touch their carcass' [which refers] only to the festivals.  If one did become tamei, he is [nevertheless] not lashed (makkot).  However, no such prohibition applies during the rest of the year." (Hilkhot Tum'at Okhlin 16:10)

The Rambam seems to have held that this halakha relates strictly to the laws of the Mikdash and kodashim.  It therefore follows that it would not apply nowadays, in the absence of the Mikdash.  Moreover, it would only apply on the three festivals on which each Jew must go to the Mikdash and eat kodashim.  It would not apply on Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur, which do not require traveling to Beis Hamikdash.

At first glance, this gemara takes a verse competely out of its pshat meaning. The posuk says that one is not allowed to touch carcasses and Gemara says that it applies only on Festivals, of which there is no mention in this verse or any other verse.

However, the halacha of the pshat in this verse does return... but unconnected to this verse.

Mishne Lamelech to this Rambam cites various authorities who imply or say that there is a standing prohibition to become Tamei, just as the verse in Shemini says. It is the position of Tosafos in several places and, in fact, it is the simple meaning of gemara in Chullin 34a. Rashi to Chullin 35a(Daleicha) also says it. The concept is called "Tumas Gviah".

It is not surprising that there is even a verse that is connected to this prohibition. Not only that, an entire mysterious and complex system of law is predicated on this prohibition: "Ochel Chullin B'Tahara". This refers to the widespread practice of eating one's regular food items in a state of preparedness and separation from inpurity that one needs for eating kodashim. Usually understood to be rabbinic and of late provenance( see Yoma 23a), Hagahos Mahari Ronshburg on Chullin 2b, cites a Ylakut Shimoni (Ki Tisa, end of Remez 386) that derives it from the verse: " And you shall make yourself Holy and be Holy (Vayikra 20). "From here said R. Gamliel: "Not only to Kohanim was holiness given from Sinai, but to all of Israel, as it says, "You shall be Holy (kedoshim tohyu)".

Here you have an example of a non-pshat explanation of a verse in Shemini but the simple explanation is not rejected. Instead it returns as derived from a different verse.

For completenesss, I must add that not everyone agrees that there exists a blanket prohibition to make oneself ritually impure. See ArtScroll notes to Chullin p. 33a, n. 33.

Now an aside. The Me'iri says a different explanation of the halakha in Rosh Hashana 16b.  Every person must purify himself on the festival in order to eat his regular food, Chullin – not the sacrificial meat – in a state of purity.  Rav A. Sofer (in his notes on the Me'iri) notes the novelty of this approach and its far-reaching ramifications. This is also the opinion of the Tur. The Tur (O.C. 603) cites a tradition from Avi Ha-ezri that one should try to eat all his food in a state of tahara during the seven days between Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur.  He explains that this tradition speaks of only seven days (rather than all ten days of repentance, including Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur) because it is superfluous on Rosh Hashana.  Since a person must be pure on the festivals (including Rosh Hashana), there is no need for a special tradition to require eating in a state of tahara on Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur. Similarly, Likewise, the Shibbolei Ha-leket (283) quotes the law of Rabbi Yitzchak and adds that this law applies to every festival – "and even more so on Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur, which are days of judgement."  He go so far as to require the recitation of a berakha when one immerses in a mikveh before Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur as part of his process of teshuva (repentance).  The Tur (ibid. 606) records Rav Sa'adya Gaon's ruling that one recites a berakha when immersing in the mikveh before Yom Kippur.  The Rosh, however, strongly disagreed, arguing that there is no basis in the Talmud at all for this custom. Bach tries to defend R. Saadia Gaon. R. Yeruchem Perlow in Sefer Hamitzvos L'R Saadiah Gaon suggests that the blessing is derived form a Biblical obligation to purify oneself before Yom Kippur, "Before Hashem shall you be purified".

How could one explain Meiri? I suggest that Rabbon Gamliel, the same one who Biblically obligates to eat Chullin in purity in the Yalkut, holds that Rosh Hashana and Yom Kipur are like festivals for the purposes of voiding aveilus  and this is halacha  (YD 9 and OC 14). The obligation to become purified on Festivals is a component of the obligation to eat Chullin in Purity and even on Rosh Hashana, when one eats plenty of Chullin and no Kodashim, this obligation applies.

Let us now come back to the concepts.

We saw that Chazal often do not abandon pshat but substitute drash for the pshat. The pshat, however, returns under a guise of a derivation from another verse, or as halacha without a stated derivation. Why do they do it?

I think that it is because no derivation stand alone. One who learns Talmud quickly sees that various Sages had an interconneted and complex system of derivation of various details of a particular halacha from different verses. One often sees how a Sage derives several details from different verses and another Sage who disagrees with one  of these details is forced to construct another structure of derivations. The first Sage objects that if so, how do you derive this  and that, and the other Sage is forced to proivde verses for that detail as well. I think that we see only a portion of this inteconnected drash systems in the gemara and that they are more complex and interlinked. Sometimes we see an isolated drash that seems "far out" but do not realize that it is a part of an entire structure of interpretations. In order for the structure to be sound and withstand scrutiny, some halachos must bear a more forced and a more drash type of intepretation. When we see this particular interpretation in isolation we do not appreciate the need that forced it and we wonder.

Now, you might think, after I got through with it, that R. Yitzhak's intepretation, that one must purify himsf on a Festival is just a drash and that it has not basis in Pshat. Wrong again!

Rashbam in four places ( Shemos 29:37, 30:29, Vayikra 6:11 and 11:8) explains pesukim in a way that demonstrates that R.Yitzhak is also saying pshat. R. Yitshak says that one must purify himself on Festivals because he will then be touching or eating kodshim. The Torah itself says it, according to Rashbam. In these places it says that one who approaches or touches consecrated things, "yikdash (shall be holy"). The traditional understanding of this is, as Rashi brings, that when a piece of sacrificial meat of lesser holiness absorbs from a piece of greater holiness, it too is treated as having greater holiness. Rashbam says differently. He says that it means that someone who approaches a mizbeach or kodshim must purify himself. He supports it from the identical language used at the sanctification at Mount Sinai (yikdashu).

Here we also see how a what appears to be a drash is actually a simple meaning of a different verse, which Chazal also darshined in a way different from its pshat.

It seems that the realm of derivation and drash and of halacha and pshat are  seen as completely separate realms, neither of which takes away from the other.

Fascinating!

 

 

What makes a kosher person.

Parshas Shemini tells us of two signs(simanim) of Kosher animal. One is what it does with its mouth - whether it chews its cud or not. This siman goes deep, from the mouth to the inner self, up and down, over and over again. The other one is in its hoofs, meaning its hands and feet.

There are people who say the right things but what they do and where they go makes them not kosher. There are people who do a lot of good and stay in the right places but whose mouth is not under their control. Can't blame them - they did not learn mussar and were never taught how, but neither of these two types is a kosher person. 

Kosher means both!

See, how much one can learn from animals.

See also here