Tuesday, April 10, 2012

Introduction

Welcome to my blog, 70 sparks. The primary occupation of this blog will be clarifying core chassidic concepts. Additionally there will be a focus on giving the reader the background and context within which to place chassidic thought so that the concepts don't exist in an intellectual vacuum. Therefore part two of any given topic will be a comparative analysis in which we will explore how the Talmudists, Rishonim, Achronim and even sometimes other religions viewed the same concept. Besides the obvious advantage of intellectual thoroughness of such an approach, I really think that when one views chassidic thought against the backdrop of much of the scholarly literature that came before it, one's appreciation for it is magnified tenfold.

The first post on core Chassidic concepts will be uploaded Monday and then later in the week I will post part two which is the comparative analysis. The concept under discussion will be the value ascribed to our physical world by Judaism and in general the significance of the material and the tangible. Meaning if we believe, as Judaism does, that there are spiritual realities then what is the point of creating the physical realm which is just an infinitely cruder version of reality then the spiritual. And if there is value to our material world, can it ever be seen as superior to the spiritual or is it always to be relegated to an inferior status. Simply put, what is the purpose of our existence.

Or to frame the question in more personal terms : Does going to work, doing a favor for someone else and picking up the dry-cleaning have any superior depth and meaning then an earnest prayer to G-d or studying a piece of Torah?

Perhaps the question can also be constructed as follows. It is commonly known that there are two dimensions to Judaism. The bond between man and G-d and the bond between man and man, i.e. the divine imperative and the ethical- moral imperative. Which dimension imparts greater divinity and greatness to the individual? Are they equal? What are the differing advantages to each?

Part one on this topic, which is a clarification of Chassidic thought on this subject, is mostly based on the maamer/dissertation delivered by the Rebbe in 1958 titled “Hasam Nafsheinu Ba’chayim”. You can study it here http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=25071&st=&pgnum=27&hilite=It is on page 27 within the link. Part two will then be placing this idea into a broader context, discussing the Talmudic and medieval Rishonim’s take on the issue. Lastly we will briefly touch on the conceptual differences that Judaism as a whole presents versus Islamic and Christian perspectives.

I am currently working on a book translating and analyzing the writings of the Rogatchover Gaon. For my wedding, which was a month ago, I printed a short sample of the book.  You can access it here [http://mike-ro-tech.com/berry/book.pdf]. It contains the rough draft of the chapter in my book which deals with the innovations of the Rogatchover on the Hillel/Shammai debates. Even though this blog is primarily devoted to clarifying and analyzing core concepts in Chassidic thought, I will upload each week a short idea on the Parshah gleaned from the Rogatchover’s writings. The following is this week’s parshah idea.

CHAPTER ONE

The idea that every single word and even letter in the Torah (i.e. the Pentateuch) has either a legislative (halachik) or ethical (hashkafik) implication represented the mainstream school of thought in Rabbinic literature. However the Talmud in Sanhedrin 90b records a dispute about this premise.
Frequently, the Torah will repeat a verb, for example, hikareis tikareis, which literally means “cut off he shall be cut off” (Bamidbar 15:31). Rabbi Yishmael maintains that “the Torah speaks in the language of men.” As such, just as mortal writers will use repetition for emphasis, so too, the Torah. According to his conception, the above phrase means: “He will certainly be cut off.”

Rabbi Akiva, by contrast, considers each word used by the Torah as a significant Divine message. In his conception, repetition is not a mere literary technique, but an invitation, nay a demand, for interpretation. Thus he interprets this phrase as meaning, hikareis -He will be cut off in this world i.e., die prematurely; tikareis - He will be cut off in the World to Come and not merit the spiritual rewards of that era.


But over the ages the body of Jewish scholarship has gradually gravitated towards Rabbi Akiva’s opinion to the extent that Rabbi Yishmael eventually came to be considered an extreme divergent opinion. Indeed in the few places in the Talmud [Kiddushin 17b; Baba Metzia 31b; Sanhedrin 90b] that reference this concept of “the Torah speaks in the language of men” many Rishonim [Ritva on kiddushin loc. cit.; Tosafot Baba Metzia loc. cit.;] explain that it was stated in a localized way that is only applicable to the specific verse in the Torah under discussion. I.e. that verse had some hint that indicated that it was able to be interpreted as mere literary technique, but in general even Rabbi Yishmael would agree that it is not a universal rule.

Others disagree [Raavad brought in the Ramban on Baba Metzia loc. cit.; Ran on Nedarim 3a]
and draw the full consequence of Rabbi Yishmael’s opinion, that we can apply this concept across the board of Torah interpretation.

This idea of absolute significance to every textual nuance, what some in the academic world call the “omnisignificance” of the Torah, was taken to new extremes in the world of the Rogatchover. I devote a chapter to this in my book but suffice to say here that the intense heights that he took this concept to was unparralled in his time, perhaps ever. At any rate, this week I shall be presenting a piece of his writing that exemplifies this approach of biblical exegesis.

For those of you who are academically inclined I recently came across an intriguing article by Rabbi Dr. Yaakov Elman who is an Associate Professor of Jewish Studies at Yeshiva University. It is called “The Rebirth of Omnisignificant Biblical Exegesis in the Ninteenth and Twentieth Centuries”. In it he argues that this idea of absolute meaning attributed to every single letter of the Torah was somewhat ignored and fell by the wayside in the period of the Geonim and Rishonim and only recently experienced a revival as an intellectual response to the criticisms of the Haskalah movement. He points out that there are legislative passages in the Torah that have tens of pages of Talmudic interpretation yet there are huge blocs of Torah that receive a general and simple theme. Such as,  the long narrative of G-d commanding the building of the Mishkan and then that same content repeated as Moses went ahead and built it. Most biblical commentators in trying to explain this phenomenon give one vast overarching theme to all the repetition. Such as the Ramban saying that the repetition is to emphasize the importance of the Mishkan. Yet no one clarifies how each and every repeated letter contains something new. He then proceeds to analyze the style of four giants of biblical interpretation. The Malbim, Netziv, Reb Tzadok HaKohen and the Meshech Chochma. I don’t think there’s enough evidence in his article to fully support his claims but it makes for a fascinating read. You can read it here.

CHAPTER TWO

This week’s idea on the parshah is as follows: In chapter 31:1 of Bamidbar, G-d instructs Moses to take revenge against the Midianites. The Midianites had seduced the Jews to sin with their daughters after which G-d sent a terrible plague amongst the Jewish nation. Now it was payback time.

Then in verse four Moses directs the nation: אֶלֶף, לַמַּטֶּה, אֶלֶף, לַמַּטֶּה--לְכֹל מַטּוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל, תִּשְׁלְחוּ לַצָּבָא.
 “You should send for the army a thousand from each tribe; a thousand from each tribe”.
What was the point of repeating twice “a thousand from each tribe”? Astonishingly Rashi, the quintessential pashtan, apparently has no problem with this superfluity of words and voices no comment. As well, after a cursory examination I have not found any biblical commentator who clarifies this.

The Rogatchover however zeroes in on this and explains as follows. The battle the Jews waged against the Midianites was of an ambiguous nature. Was it simply revenge or could it be properly classified halachically as a war?  This is not simply semantics; there are serious ramifications to how we classify this military engagement.
1.      If it was a war then in certain circumstances a Jewish soldier was allowed to have relations with a female captive [see Deuteronomy 21:10-13] but if it was revenge then that allowance would not be applicable.
2.     The Rambam writes in Hilchot Shmita (13:10) that a Levi was only prohibited from taking spoils of war in Israel. However outside of Israel a Levi was indeed allowed to take spoils of war. The Raavad takes issue with this (loc. cit.) and points out that the Levi’im didn’t take spoils in the battle with Midian which was outside of Israel, thus proving that even outside of Israel the Levi’im were still excluded from taking spoils.

Presumably the Raavad is of the opinion that the engagement was a war and is therefore a proof that even outside of Israel the Levi’im are excluded from benefiting from the spoils of war. If however the battle was just revenge and not halachically considered a war then nothing from this battle can be used as proof to a real halachik war.

Therefore a thousand was taken from each tribe since Moses wasn’t sure what the nature of the battle will be and therefore took two thousand from each tribe. So for example, two thousand men were taken from Reuven and were split into two groups. This is the meaning behind the doubled clause “a thousand from each tribe; a thousand from each tribe”. One group acted in battle as if it was halachically a war and the other group comported themselves as if it was revenge.

I'm curious about your views, feel free to share them in the comments section. Do you think there is truly and unequivocally absolute meaning to every letter in the Torah or can we justifiably claim that G-d did indeed use some literary technique and repetition in the Torah. And if that is the case what does that say about the divinity inherent in those repeated sections? Can we say that they are somewhat "second class " in terms of the G-dliness and eternal relevance that they impart?

Good Shabbas and please come back for the first post on core Chassidic concepts which I will upload Monday!