This series is dedicated to
my late father, Benjamin, and my late sister, Marsha, both of whom
approached Pardes in their own, unique and loving ways.
And, יבל"ח,
to my daughter Milcah who makes sure to stick up for the רשע
at every seder.
Introduction
The title of this series,
Four Sons Walk into Paradise, is not really the beginning of a joke.
Rather, it is a result of close examination of one of the most famous
stories of the Talmud which begins 'Four entered the Pardes' and how
it relates to one of the most well known midrashim which we
repeat each year at the Passover seder, that of the Four Sons. But
before I get into those details, a little background:
When I was about 12 years
old and going to Hillel Academy in Dayton I became fascinated by the
notion of Kabbalah. The draw was mainly to what I thought to be
Jewish magic and thought that if I managed to learn the right stuff I
could perform my own little miracles, like grant myself three wishes
or get out of attending school altogether.
I requested from our
principal that we devote some time to studying Kabbalah which he
deflected by informing me that one should be forty years old before
indulging. I wasn't quite interested enough to pursue the study on my
own and certainly felt inadequate to the task. I also felt that this
one more thing that grownups are keeping away from deserving kids.
Fast forward a few years and
I found myself studying in yeshiva in Jerusalem. Already taken with
Talmudic study, I found that devoting myself practically around the
clock to that was plenty for me.
But I still had the
lingering feeling that I was missing something, kabbalah-wise.
One of the more fascinating
realizations I had while studying Talmud, though, was that many
aggadic passages had a mystical flavor or subtext.
Talmud can be roughly
divided into two types of literature: halachic and aggadic.
Halacha is, of course, discussion of Jewish law. It is
legalistic by nature and fraught with logic and rational thinking.
Aggadah, by contrast, is narrative, legend, recounting of
dreams and the like. It feels much more free form and may or may not
seem to abide by the logic of halachic passages.
Yeshivas traditionally
skipped over aggadic passages when learning Talmud. Except in
a few obvious cases when aggadah is brought to illustrate a
halachic concept, it was considered to be somehow lesser than
halachic discussion. Aggadah did not generally produce
an immediate halachic result so it was not considered
important. Generally aggadah was viewed as a side show,
perhaps a study in mussar (ethics), a digression from the
meatier discussions of halachic minutiae.
However, I came to
understand that particular aggadot (the plural form of
aggadah) were strategically placed in the text of the Talmud
not just as a chance digression and not only to illustrate halachic
concepts but as part of an integral understanding of Torah with a
capital T.
Consider that the Torah, the
Five Books of Moses, is itself a combination of mitzvot (halacha)
and narrative (aggadah). The first question which Rashi raises
in his commentary on the Torah assumes that the main purpose of the
Torah is simply to acquire practical knowledge of the mitzvot.
He implies by the question that the narrative portions are secondary.
But the reality is that
tradition views the Torah as a singular whole. One cannot truly
fulfill or even comprehend the Torah without comprehending the
narrative. A subtle interplay between narrative and law
ensues throughout the entire Torah.
Some examples are obvious
such as the narrative of God commanding Avraham to circumcise himself
and his household (Genesis 17:9-14) serving as the basis for the
mitzvah of circumcision as related later, after the giving of
the Torah at Sinai (Leviticus 12:3).
More subtle is the
declaration by God in Genesis 1:26 that he makes humans in His image.
This fundamental concept serves in turn as a basis for perhaps all of
the mitzvot bein adam l'chavero (laws
between man and his fellow man, like caring for others, torts, etc.)
Creation
of the universe by God serves a conceptual basis for mitzvot
bein adam lamakom (laws between
man and God including ritual mitzvot like keeping kosher, laying
tefillin and laws regarding belief in God and Torah).
And so
we come to understand that before we study mitzvot, we study
narrative at least as a way of forming a basis to study mitzvot,
but perhaps also to understand them in their own right. Even
more, perhaps we study mitzvot in order to understand
narrative.
In
short, the two are inextricably linked.
And with
that, we'll start off next time by looking at the midrash of
the four sons.
Interesting post. I'm excited to see where this goes!
ReplyDeleteHowever, let's not give Rashi the short shrift just yet. He's on your side, after all! It's that darn R. Yitzchaq saying we should start with החדש הזה. Rashi, sensing this might also be a concern in his own day, takes the chance to respond to the idea that: We recall the acts of God to show how Israel comes into his inheritance (subtext: culminating in the inheritance of all creation?).
For Rashi, halachah may be the concern that occupies most of his time; it deals with the mundane aspects of how we conduct life every minute of every day, but he also establishes the profound existential importance of aggadah to tell Israel where they come from and where they are going. His commentary is a prime example of how understanding the mitzvot as a part of a greater aggadah enrich both parts, and ultimately lead to the greater enrichment of the student.
A mitzva by itself can tell you what to do, but it doesn't tell you why you do it. The halachah gives life, but the aggadah gives a reason for living. I think Rashi's response to R. Yitzchaq illustrates that pretty well.
Obviously, this is not to detract from what you're saying. Just reinforcing it by showing that Rashi was right there with you!
Hi Aaron,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your well phrased comment. Of course, I agree with you. I was not impugning Rashi with undue emphasis on halacha personally; I was merely pointing out that his question begins with an assumption that receiving the mitzvot, in particular for the children of Israel, is the main point of Torah. Clearly, his answer dispenses with that assumption, thus proving my point, as you indicate.
I have seen it said that halacha is the body while aggadah is the soul of Torah (can't remember a citation for that). What is most interesting to me is when they show themselves to be so linked that you can't really tease them apart. Some of this will come up in later posts.
And, btw, of course Rashi chooses to quote R. Yitzchak so it is fair enough to attribute the assumption (again, in his question) to Rashi himself.
I look forward to more insights on your part!
Tell me more about this R. Yitzchak thing. I know Rashi is R. Shlomo ben Yitzchak, but I didn't realize that quotes attributed to R. Yitzchak could have originated with Rashi himself. News to me.
ReplyDeleteI think you misunderstood my last comment. Basically, I am saying that since Rashi chose to quote R. Yitzchak (from an earlier midrash), Rashi is saying that he agrees with the midrash and sees it as a valid comment on the verse. As such, Rashi understands the assumption of the question in the midrash (as I noted above). That is what I mean when I say it is fair to attribute the comment to Rashi; although he didn't entirely originate it (but see below), by choosing this comment from among many midrashic comments he makes it his own, as well.
DeleteFurther, the comment seems to be a mashup of two earlier midrashim. I'll paste them in below and you'll see what I mean. It would seem, then, that the total of Rashi's comment is more than what R. Yitzchak said which contributes further to the understanding that this notion can be attributed to Rashi.
Here are the sources for the comment (based on Abraham Berliner's notes in his edition of Rashi)[apologies--I can't control styles for Hebrew in the comments section]:
מדרש תנחומא (בובר) פרשת בראשית סימן יא
[יא] אמר ר' יצחק לא היה צריך לכתוב את התורה אלא מהחדש הזה לכם, ולמה כתב מבראשית, להודיע כח גבורתו, שנאמר כח מעשיו הגיד לעמו לתת להם נחלת גוים (תהלים קיא ו).
בראשית רבה (תיאודור-אלבק) פרשת בראשית פרשה א
ר' יהושע דסכנין בשם ר' לוי פתח כח מעשיו הגיד לעמו לתת להם נחלת וגו' (תהלים קיא ו), מה טעם גילה הקדוש ברוך הוא לישראל מה שנברא ביום ראשון וביום ב' וג', מפני אומות העולם שלא יהו מונים את ישראל ואומ' להם הלא אומה שלבזזות אתם אתמהא, וישראל משיבין להם ואתם הלא בזוזה היא בידכם הלא כפתרים היוצאים מכפתור השמידום וגו' (דברים ב כג), העולם ומלאו שלהקב"ה הוא, כשרצה נתנו לכם וכשרצה נטלו מכם ונתנו לנו הדא היא דכת' לתת להם נחלת גוים, כח מעשיו הגיד לעמו הגיד להם את הבראשית בראשית ברא אלהים וגו'.