One of my favorite Shabbos reads used to be the Parahas Derachim, and some of the comments to a recent post brought the sefer to mind again. The sefer is a series of essays, each opening with a Midrashic theme which is used as a springboard to construct elaborate twists of pilpul by trying to impose the halachic system onto the chumash. You have essays explaining the “machlokes” Moshe Rabeinu and Pharoah, explanations of how the Avos kept mitzvos (a ben noach cannot keep shabbos), etc. When I would say over one of these my wife would almost always ask whether it really makes sense to say things like Pharoah held like the Ra’avad while Moshe held like the Rambam, etc.? Isn’t that anachronistic? By the same token, isn’t asking whether the Imahos observed non-zman gerama mitzvos (as discussed in a previous post) surrendering too much to literalism and anachronistically imposing the halachic system on past events?
But if one dismisses these approaches as overly literalistic, as anachronistic, as pilpul shel hevel, what is one to make of seforim like the Parashas Derachim… the Chasam Sofer… the Hafla’ah… the Netziv…the Yismach Moshe… the Meshech Chochma… and so many others which engage in these type readings?
In the same vein, what is one to make of Chassidic seforim which impose an entire system of meta-halachic concerns for tikunim and birurim on the acts of the Avos? Isn’t this an anachronistic reading as well, an imposition on the text which could not possibly be pshat or inherent in a “rational” understanding of the text?
I’m holding my cards for now and simply raising the question for comment.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Of course it's anachronistic. I don't know how it could even be contemplated otherwise.
ReplyDeleteIf you like this sort of thing, why not? Just keep derush separate from pshat, because אין משיבין על הדרש.
Its one thing to give halachic explanations for the avos,but Pharoah?I've never seen any mainstream sefer do so.Do you have places where they do?
ReplyDeleteI believe that the Torah doesn't describe confrontations between utter falsehood and perfect truth. Just as Moshe Rabbeinu, who most thoroughly incorporated Daas Torah, erred in God's eyes, lehavdil the great resha'im in the Torah were misled by, or were able to use as a rationalization, some element of truth. If you don't understand why Korach or Kayin or Eisav or Yishmael had some justification, you don't understand the machlokes at all. We're told to remember the story of the eigel not because it was a stupid and mindlessly hedonistic rebellion but rather because it alludes to a half-truth or a misapplied concept that might be mistaken for a whole-truth.
ReplyDelete>>>If you like this sort of thing, why not? Just keep derush separate from pshat,
ReplyDeleteWhat is the value of forcing the text into a straitjacket which it was never written to conform to? Is it all an intellectual game?
>What is the value of forcing the text into a straitjacket which it was never written to conform to? Is it all an intellectual game?
ReplyDeleteI personally see very little value, so I'm not the best one to answer that.
However, there is something to be said for enabling texts to remain relevant by recreating what they mean. If you don't do it, they become quite dated. A Torah that one doesn't project oneself onto very easily becomes an ancient Near Eastern text; extremely interesting, perhaps, but not hora'ah.
While saying "Pharaoh holds like the Ra'avad" is a bit extreme, doesn't the Gemara and our classical texts from all periods employ much anachronism? Whether it's the Rambam believing he could understand Torah by comparing it to Arabian pagan texts from the period immediately prior to Islam or the midrash portraying Dovid as a talmid chochom and posek, even examining bloody kesamim, or your examples of the Chasam Sofer, Meshech Chochma, etc--such things are, at least one on level, a way of making old texts and personalities immediately relevant.
That said, there are enough people doing this, so one needn't worry that this genre is in any danger, so sometimes a little pshat can be a refreshing change.
"Whether it's the Rambam believing he could understand Torah by comparing it to Arabian pagan texts from the period immediately prior to Islam"
ReplyDeleteI don't think this is anachronistic; it's based on an assumption that many a"z are similar, which I have heard is a reasonable hypothesis.
"or the midrash portraying Dovid as a talmid chochom and posek, even examining bloody kesamim"
maybe the anachronism is assuming that he couldnt possibly have been.
"Is it all an intellectual game?"
ReplyDeleteSometimes, people use this sort of analysis as part of entering into a genre. I don't think it's a game, used that way - more like a device.