Rashi (22:2) writes that Hashem used the term “na”, please, in commanding the akeidah because Hashem begged Avraham not to fail so as to not provide the people of the world with an excuse to say this failure proves the first tests meaningless and Avraham and his religion are a failure. It is remarkable that people might even consider dismissing the rest of Avraham's accomplishments and legacy if he should fail to meet the demanding test of the akeidah, but we know that's how people are. As I commented recently on someone else's blog, a talmid chacham could spend years learning and teaching Torah and all that good can be undermined and dismissed if the individual makes even one strange comment that gets noticed and broadcast --the yotzei min haklal becomes the definition of the klal. Anyway, getting back on topic, I don't think Rashi here means to say that the only reason G-d wanted Avraham to succeed was l'afukei his detractors (as some interpret), but rather in addition to all the good reasons we would expect G-d should want Avraham to succeed the word "na" clues us into an additional factor at play here.
Rav Shteinman in Ayeles HaShachar raises the rather pragmatic question of how people might draw any conclusion from Avraham's response to the akeidah -- who knew about the test and who would know whether Avraham passed or failed? He therefore concludes that Rashi does not mean to say others will literally question Avraham if he fails, but rather the one blot on an almost-perfect record would cry out for correction. You don't get as much credit for the 99 successes as the blame you get for that one failure.
Rav Shteinman goes yet a step further and writes that all the previous successes were not true tests as they did not pose a challenge for someone on Avraham's level. The akeidah was the one and only true test of Avraham's character (I would note that the word "nisah", test, is used only here and not earlier in the Torah [see Netz"iv]), and therefore, success here was critical.
I want to contrast R' Shteinman's approach with that of the Arugas haBosem. The Midrash notes that the test of the akeidah and the first test which Avraham faced, the test of leaving his home, are both introduced with the words, "lech lecha". Given the similarity of expression, the Midrash seems to equate the two tests and asks which was greater. The answer -- the akeidah was greater -- is obvious and not nearly as surprising as the fact that a question and hava amina to think otherwise was raised in the first place. The Arugas haBosem explains that objectively speaking the akeidah is certainly the greater test, as the Midrash concludes. However, G-d's tests are calibrated to the level and ability of each individual. The test of leaving home may very well have been as challenging to an Avraham early in his relationship with G-d as the test of the akeidah was to an Avraham who was already mature in his religious development. It's not the objective accomplishment alone which counts in G-d's eyes; l'fum tza'ara agra -- its the effort and progress of the individual relative to their ability and gifts which count as well.
These two approaches are not mutually exclusive. We each have a task and goal for which we were placed in this world; whether we passed that test and did or did not achieve that goal is a significant question. But at the same time, achieving that goal may require overcoming numerous hurdles and obstacles, each of which drives development to the next stage and each of which is an accomplishment in its own right.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"I don't think Rashi here means to say..."
ReplyDeleteI'm confused by this statement. what are you, a historian?! if not, why should you care about Rashi's intent? isn't carrying about what Rashi *means* to say mere history, rather than talmud Torah?
;)
kol tuv,
josh
There are over 300 supercommentaries on Rashi. They are not claiming to be historians but learning Torah.
ReplyDelete"the yotzei min haklal becomes the definition of the klal."
ReplyDeleteThat's because the human ability to rationalize is so great, and driven by the yetzer hara.
I am reminded of the Rashi in Shemos (11:4) when Moshe delivers Hashem's last warning that he will smite the firstborn Egyptians, he uses the phrase, "ka chatzi halayla," 'about midnight.' In fact Hashem smote them exactly at midnight, but Rashi, quoting Chazal, say if Moshe said that, then Pharaoh's astrologers might make a mistake in time and say Moshe was off and therefore was a liar. So he said "about minight."
Think about what Chazal are telling us. The Egyptians have experienced nine plagues thus far. They are at the breaking point. The tenth will occur that night and every firstborn will be smitten, from highest to lowest, and there will be an outcry such as there has never been heard in Egypt.
And yet some letz will still be able to say, "On my watch it happened at 11:58! That Moses is a liar!"
"There are over 300 supercommentaries on Rashi. They are not claiming to be historians but learning Torah."
ReplyDeleteabsolutely! because they are not post-modernists, who have declared that they don't care about rashi's original intent, and that such is not talmud torah but is for historians. see chaim b.'s comment on the previous thread.
as for me, i agree with you, and with those 300 supercommentators, that trying to intuit rashi's intent *is* talmud torah.
kol tuv,
josh
in other words, to clarify, my first comment on this thread was absolutely tongue in cheek. thus the winky emoticon at the end. i was saying "leshitascha, caring about Rashi's intent is the work of a historian, not a talmid chacham. so why write as if Rashi's intent is a concern, and that an interpretation in line with Rashi's intent is somehow "better" than the alternatives?
ReplyDeletekt,
josh
See Likkutei Sichos Vol. 20 p. 73-78 for the Lubavitcher Rebbes explanation. I will try to post a kitzur a little later on..
ReplyDeleteNo, Josh. Learning Torah is not discovering history; nor is it discovering exactly what Rashi meant. It is finding meaning in Torah and in Chazal. It follows that disparaging Chazal for describing things in terms that do not correspond to a modern scientific outlook with the assurance that one KNOWS that they had to have meant the words in a strictly literal, .i.e. concrete and observable sense, is not learning Torah.
ReplyDeleteOn authorial intent in Torah: here's my take. I believe that Chazal had a superhuman insight into the Authorial intent of Torah. That is why their midrashim are part of Torah even when they appear to deviate fromt he Pshat. However, I believe that those who came after Chazal are not their equals. Therfore, they cannot claim special insight that allows them to KNOW what the intentions are. If there is scale to rank this, and Chazal are hovering at the 100th point, we are still below the first point. So there is no way that we spiritual and intellectual (yes, I mean it) pygmies can completely comprehend every aspect of what such spiritual and intellectual giants meant. The best we can hope for is to glean as much out of their wisdom as we can, given our limited abilities.
ReplyDeleteHoweever, if we ignore our limited abilities, and insist that we are their equals, we falsely box them into compartments made in our own little minds.
The supercommentators on Rashi did not presume to say they were on par with Rashi. They recognized that Rashi is great and that there are as yet unexplored depths in his words. They are like deep sea divers attempting to pull up some of the treasures that lay hidden. But they know that all that they have discovered is only a tiny fraction of all that there is.
"No, Josh."
ReplyDeleteno. rather, once again, you came in in the middle of a conversation, have no idea what i was saying, and falsely attributed positions to me. (such as "disparaging Chazal".) the topic of conversation is whether one can frumly say "everyone is saying nonsense anyway, so I am entitled to do so as well, and coming up with random things I *know* they never meant is limmud Torah, while trying to discover what they did mean, by reading the midrashim inside is not."
the rest of your comment is a not-sequitur. though i would note that Rashi is not "Chazal". Technically, Chazal are the Tannaim and Amoraim, not the Rishonim.
kol tuv,
josh
R.A. -- Maybe you can help. I thought the Rebbe had a hesber of the malachim eating or not eating, but could not find it.
ReplyDeleteTal-- Exactly. At least then it was only the Mitzrim that Moshe had to worry about and not his coreligionists.
that is, i was responding to the comment that
ReplyDelete"Since no one I have read and admire gives a jot about authorial intent and historical meaning in their learning (interestingly, in English Lit. the same holds true these days), I put those concerns aside for when I want to do history and concentrate on other things when I want to do talmud Torah."
you appear to care about authorial intent, and think it is important; and then these meforshim of Rashi are humble and yet trying to get at Rashi's intent. this seems to me different than your position. i understand the desire to help out your husband in a fight, but i was not arguing with you and your positions here.
of course, chaim can turn around and argue that that is effectively what he is saying. let him do that.
kt,
josh
As I wrote yesterday, I have yet to find meforshim who reject a pshat because it is inconsistant with historical context. You, Josh, do. Example: you reject reading kabbalistic ideas into midrash simply because these ideas became known to us at a historically later period. The number of people who accept such an approach and outweigh you in both piety and scholarship exceed the number of fingers and toes I have to count. End of the story as far as I am concerned.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteYes, I am quite aware of the classification that distinguish Chazal from Rishonim, who are, in turn distinguished from Acharonim. They represent a hierarchy in the mesorah of Torah sheba'al peh. We, at the most undistinguished position at the end of the line, cannot claim to have superior knowledge and understanding and, certainly, cannot presume to know the full extent of what Chazal or a great Rishon understood.
ReplyDelete"it is inconsistant with historical context"
ReplyDeletefine. (though that doesn't strike me as the same as what you said, and the reason that these people don't do this is that they don't acknowledge it as an anachronism, while you seem to, by asserting that it is not the same as authorial intent. while ariella seems to assert that authorial intent is infinite, so it is authorial intent.)
but more importantly, historical context is not the same as actually looking in the midrash. the midrash in Eliyahu Rabba explicitly states that he is arguing, and explains in what way he is arguing, which is that he feels Hashem diverted derech hateva in this case. ignoring what the midrash actually says, and making up a different, extremely speculative reason, does not strike me as skillful talmud torah, even according to your own methodology. did you examine the actual midrash in Seder Eliyahu Rabba before writing what you did, or did you just rely on Tosafot's summary?
"Yes, I am quite aware"
good for you! it is important to be aware of the gradations.
"cannot presume to know the full extent"
once again, good for you. very "frum" of you. though i disagree, and you know i disagree. (although that is not the same as "disparaging Chazal"). but it strikes me as utterly irrelevant. the question was: are they *trying* to figure out what Rashi meant. did they care about Rashi's intent. and the answer, according to me, and according to you, they are.
kt,
josh
that is, chaim wrote
ReplyDeleteHowever, I, the "objective" observer reviewing Rashi's words, am compelled by the evidence to say that Rashi did introduce anachronisms whether he believed he was doing so or not.
so he recognizes the anachronism, and yet grants it legitimacy as a new creation. and similarly, grants his own creations as similarly valuable torah, also he admit the anachronism and that it is not authorial intent.
ariella is stating, iiuc, (though it is possible that i do not) that authorial intent is infinite. so they humbly try, and whatever they come up with was part of the infinite authorial intent. so how dare i say that Maharal is saying something that Rashi didn't mean? Rashi is further along the continuum, and of course knew Maharal. And Maharal is further along the continuum, so how could I say Maharal was wrong.
but i am not arguing with ariella. i am arguing with chaim.
chaim, despite a followup post, i am wondering whether you actually looked up the midrash in Eliyahu Rabba, and whether you consider actually looking at the words of the midrash to be the path of the historian.
kt,
josh
"I have yet to find meforshim who reject a pshat because it is inconsistant with historical context."
ReplyDeletelo rainu aino raya. the reason they don't reject such a peshat, as you yourself admit, was that they were unaware of the anachronism. that is, they believe it is Truth.
but from midrash rabba on kedoshim:
רב הונא בר קפרא אמר ישב אברהם אבינו ודרש
נאמר ערלה באילן ונאמר ערלה באדם
מה ערלה שנא' באילן מקום שהוא עושה פירות
אף ערלה שנאמר באדם מקום שהוא עושה פירות
א"ר חנין בן פזי
וכי כבר היה אברהם אבינו יודע קלין וחמורין וגזירות שוות
אלא רמז רמזה לו (בראשית יז) ואתנה בריתי ביני וביניך וגו'
מקום שהוא פרה ורבה
That is, Rav Chanin ben Pazi thought that Rav Huna bar Kappara's answer was anachronistic, because Torah study in Avraham's day would not have included kal vachomer and gezera shava. And so he rejects it. And yes, he was engaging in Talmud Torah here, not history.
kol tuv,
josh
Just something you might find interesting-http://www.torahimderecheretz.org
ReplyDeleteI like the Choshen Mishpat section
Chaim B.
ReplyDeleteI think the sich you are referring to is Likkutei Sichos Vol. 25 p. 70-78
http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14948&st=&pgnum=83