I enjoyed it. I really like the comment, "let's not be to quick to spiritualize." As you and I talked before, the Midrash gives some great insights into the meaning of Torah. We also know that Midrash never makes a p'shat invalid correct? We should be giving thanks, for it is like our sacrifice (so to speak)as it speaks in the psalms. I also think that all the things mentioned should be done. They are like the columns of existence.
It seems to me that one builds on the other and it is expressing an explicit way to prepare the way of Hashem. 1. Giving thanks in all things- being happy is a great teaching in and of itself as we see in pirkei avot - "have a pleasant disposition" 2. Teaching His people the Torah with humility (Kefa speaks of this) 3. Giving tzadakah the poor- 4. No putting a stumbling block before the blind.
All of these go back to "love your neighbor" and ultimately we love Hashem through this.
Right-midrash does not invalidate the peshat. Also, midrash isn't easily categorized within the four levels of meaning. It follows the beat of a different drummer.
Can you explain that more? It would seem that the MiDRASH would follow the 4 levels of interpretation under the DRASH of PaRDeS. In the Talmud we see similar use of Drash when taking a text to prove a certain point, which we call "Drasha." Is this your understanding of the use of DRASH?
I would love to hear more on your "different drummer."
Good questions. I can't answer them adequately this comment, but I'll offer a few thoughts. I assumed that your original question—“Midrash never makes a p'shat invalid correct?”—concerned midrash in general. (The midrash you were commenting on was, of course, a drash, though with important peshat implications.) So I’ll continue on that assumption.
It is important to exercise savra mib'hutz in this matter, since we are not under obligation to accept PaRDeS as ontologically secure or the only, or even always adequate, model. PaRDeS is most likely a late model of interpretive approaches, found first in the Zohar, though it may derive from earlier sources not in our possession. It has attained a high status for good reason—it unifies all Torah interpretation under one rubric. However, like “The world stands on three things . . .” (Pirkei Avot 1:2 and 1:18), there are alternatives. PaRDeS itself may be categorized as derash, a “homiletical” interpretation of interpretation rather than peshat, a plain understanding of Torah interpretation.
Given the absence of any mention of PaRDeS in midrash (as an interpretive model, that is) it is not at all evident that Hazal thought of their work in these categories. Midrash rarely reflects on its own work. When it does, it uses different terminology. For example, Shir Hashirim Rabbah uses three terms: dikdukim (details or specifics), sod (here meaning something like “foundation” or “principle” rather than secret meaning) and hariza (linking) to describe its work in the Tanakh. These describe the conceptual approach of midrash rather than its function.
Carl,
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed it. I really like the comment, "let's not be to quick to spiritualize." As you and I talked before, the Midrash gives some great insights into the meaning of Torah. We also know that Midrash never makes a p'shat invalid correct? We should be giving thanks, for it is like our sacrifice (so to speak)as it speaks in the psalms. I also think that all the things mentioned should be done. They are like the columns of existence.
It seems to me that one builds on the other and it is expressing an explicit way to prepare the way of Hashem.
1. Giving thanks in all things- being happy is a great teaching in and of itself as we see in pirkei avot - "have a pleasant disposition"
2. Teaching His people the Torah with humility (Kefa speaks of this)
3. Giving tzadakah the poor-
4. No putting a stumbling block before the blind.
All of these go back to "love your neighbor" and ultimately we love Hashem through this.
Good post... Lathan
Thanks Lathan,
ReplyDeleteRight-midrash does not invalidate the peshat. Also, midrash isn't easily categorized within the four levels of meaning. It follows the beat of a different drummer.
Can you explain that more? It would seem that the MiDRASH would follow the 4 levels of interpretation under the DRASH of PaRDeS. In the Talmud we see similar use of Drash when taking a text to prove a certain point, which we call "Drasha." Is this your understanding of the use of DRASH?
ReplyDeleteI would love to hear more on your "different drummer."
Good questions. I can't answer them adequately this comment, but I'll offer a few thoughts.
ReplyDeleteI assumed that your original question—“Midrash never makes a p'shat invalid correct?”—concerned midrash in general. (The midrash you were commenting on was, of course, a drash, though with important peshat implications.) So I’ll continue on that assumption.
It is important to exercise savra mib'hutz in this matter, since we are not under obligation to accept PaRDeS as ontologically secure or the only, or even always adequate, model. PaRDeS is most likely a late model of interpretive approaches, found first in the Zohar, though it may derive from earlier sources not in our possession. It has attained a high status for good reason—it unifies all Torah interpretation under one rubric. However, like “The world stands on three things . . .” (Pirkei Avot 1:2 and 1:18), there are alternatives. PaRDeS itself may be categorized as derash, a “homiletical” interpretation of interpretation rather than peshat, a plain understanding of Torah interpretation.
Given the absence of any mention of PaRDeS in midrash (as an interpretive model, that is) it is not at all evident that Hazal thought of their work in these categories. Midrash rarely reflects on its own work. When it does, it uses different terminology. For example, Shir Hashirim Rabbah uses three terms: dikdukim (details or specifics), sod (here meaning something like “foundation” or “principle” rather than secret meaning) and hariza (linking) to describe its work in the Tanakh. These describe the conceptual approach of midrash rather than its function.
Let’s talk about this sometime.
My bad--there is also "penetrating." So the four are details, foundation, linking, and penetrating.
ReplyDelete