Wrestle with Pshat or Jump to Derash?

[dauer]

I've moved the discussion on psych books to here:

http://www.comparative-religion.com/...tml#post157793

[bananabrain]

Originally Posted by dauer

Is the book you're referring to called Peshat and Derash?

yup, that's it. it's an important insight that explains a great deal about the way the aharonim do peshat.

I would see read their response differently, similarly to the way in which I would read the way the mishna dances around the stoning of an unruly child.

it's a *challenge*, as you are well aware. "there never was a 'rebellious son'" (unruly child is an unnecessarily emotive reading of the text, btw, the b.s.u-m would have to be an adult to receive capital punishment!) i can't see why you would have trouble accepting that they were conscious of the nuances. this comes actually from studying gemara; the level of nuance that these guys were aware of was subtle to the nth degree. knowing something about the analytical capabilities of the sages, i would have difficulty reconciling this with the evidence.

It may have been more that, if a passage seemed offensive when taken at face value, then it could not possibly be meant to be taken at face value.

precisely. what is more, you may need to consider the issue of ezekiel 20:25:

I also gave them statutes that were not good and ordinances by which they could not live

it seems to me that this was G!D's challenge to our humanity and one, unfortunately, which we were constantly unequal to. it is discussed rather well here by hyam maccoby:

BAD COMMANDMENTS

But the ethical imperative for me comes not from some loose read of the passages themselves but instead from a head-to-head confrontation with the history contained in those passages. I think to do otherwise is a dishonor to Amalek and all of the other peoples that the ancient Israelites murdered and plundered, as was the way of the world in that time, a hypocrisy and a failure to learn from our people's mistakes.

but you're assuming that there *is* history contained in those passages. it may actually be prophecy, which should be read in a different way: "thou shalt" can be both rueful prediction and command. moreover, if one understands amalek and the seven nations to be ideal halakhic constructs rather than actual tribes, perhaps G!D's challenge to us was to "eliminate amalek and the seven nations" by destroying their idolatrous cultures and behaviour, not by killing their physical bodies. we misunderstood and went, as usual, for the obvious, physical and measurable. it was a test we failed - because, obviously, eliminating bad behaviours requires a different approach.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[dauer]

BB,

it's a *challenge*, as you are well aware. "there never was a 'rebellious son'" (unruly child is an unnecessarily emotive reading of the text, btw, the b.s.u-m would have to be an adult to receive capital punishment!) i can't see why you would have trouble accepting that they were conscious of the nuances. this comes actually from studying gemara; the level of nuance that these guys were aware of was subtle to the nth degree. knowing something about the analytical capabilities of the sages, i would have difficulty reconciling this with the evidence.

Their response is still the same though, to go to great lengths to make it impossible.

precisely

What I meant by that is that it may have been their perspective, but not reflective of what the text was historically saying, much in the same way that Rambam, rather than seeing an incongruity between Aristotle and Torah, saw that what rang true which was external to Torah would not conflict with it and, while differing with Aristotle at times, still read Aristotle into the Torah. I don't think that speaks to the Torah itself though, just the perspectives of those who interpret it.

it seems to me that this was G!D's challenge to our humanity and one, unfortunately, which we were constantly unequal to. it is discussed rather well here by hyam maccoby:

I'll need you to clarify what Maccoby is getting at, is it that the above was meant as a paraphrase by Ezekiel of his opponents' position, his opponents seeing older laws and customs as G!d-given which Ezekiel does not see as G!d-given, a conflict on the authority of tradition vs the authority of an innovative spiritual insight? This passage

"This interpretation casts new light on Ezekiel's dispute with the Israelites. Rather than being merely disobedient to the commandments of Yahweh, these Israelites disapproved of the upstart prophetic interpreters, who, in the name of Yahweh, forbade a practice of ancient authority, the sacrifice of firstborn sons."

would seem to validate my statement that a belief in hating and annihilating Amalek should be challenged. I am wondering if, on some level, we are arguing along similar lines but from different perspectives? I support the attempts of the Talmud to soften matters that were offensive to them or turn them upside down and, I think it's something that should be continued today. I don't, however, think that this means the more likely historical meaning, taken in the context of the time and place in which the Torah came to be, should be ignored. I think it is better to wrestle with that meaning.

but you're assuming that there *is* history contained in those passages. it may actually be prophecy, which should be read in a different way: "thou shalt" can be both rueful prediction and command. moreover, if one understands amalek and the seven nations to be ideal halakhic constructs rather than actual tribes, perhaps G!D's challenge to us was to "eliminate amalek and the seven nations" by destroying their idolatrous cultures and behaviour, not by killing their physical bodies. we misunderstood and went, as usual, for the obvious, physical and measurable. it was a test we failed - because, obviously, eliminating bad behaviours requires a different approach.

And while I think that interpretation can be healthy, I don't think it's the intent of the text. I see Torah as an historical document which becomes a sacred text through the collective consensus of the Jewish community and as such, that the history in which the text arises should be taken into account in understanding its original meaning. I am not opposed to an evolution of ideas which is able to see Amalek as referring to a particular set of behaviors but I don't think, if it is referring to that, that it is referring only to that. You brought up the book of Joshua in your last post. That is another example of violent warfare in the ancient world. The Tanach is filled with a lot of similar examples during a time when this was the way of the world. If you see the meaning of Torah as, by its very nature, speaking to all generations and all times, then I can understand you would avoid the suggestion that Torah speaks to the actual annihilation of Amalek as a form of genocide. I see the Torah as speaking to all generations and all times because each generation is able to read itself into Torah and find new insight in it, that it is an act of co-creation which takes a finite text of very limited meaning and applies to it many meanings. I see it concurrently as a finite text that had an original and limited meaning which was the intent of the authors of the text. But I also think there was most likely an evolution in meaning before the Torah took the form that we have it today, as a matter of passing through different hands and voices over generations.

-- Dauer

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by bananabrain

yup, that's it. it's an important insight that explains a great deal about the way the aharonim do peshat.


it's a *challenge*, as you are well aware. "there never was a 'rebellious son'" (unruly child is an unnecessarily emotive reading of the text, btw, the b.s.u-m would have to be an adult to receive capital punishment!) i can't see why you would have trouble accepting that they were conscious of the nuances. this comes actually from studying gemara; the level of nuance that these guys were aware of was subtle to the nth degree. knowing something about the analytical capabilities of the sages, i would have difficulty reconciling this with the evidence.


precisely. what is more, you may need to consider the issue of ezekiel 20:25:

it seems to me that this was G!D's challenge to our humanity and one, unfortunately, which we were constantly unequal to. it is discussed rather well here by hyam maccoby:

BAD COMMANDMENTS

but you're assuming that there *is* history contained in those passages. it may actually be prophecy, which should be read in a different way: "thou shalt" can be both rueful prediction and command. moreover, if one understands amalek and the seven nations to be ideal halakhic constructs rather than actual tribes, perhaps G!D's challenge to us was to "eliminate amalek and the seven nations" by destroying their idolatrous cultures and behaviour, not by killing their physical bodies. we misunderstood and went, as usual, for the obvious, physical and measurable. it was a test we failed - because, obviously, eliminating bad behaviours requires a different approach.

b'shalom

bananabrain

I can't pretend to understand the Jewish methods of interpretation. My impression, for what it might be worth, in that by killing the people and not the practices, their consciences became seared and vulnerable to evil practices. In this depraved/vulnerable state, they themselves became fascinated with these idolatrous practices, and started doing it themselves, to their own destruction.

{Does that make sense?}

[Dream]

Sounds like Maccoby has a bomb that could take all the interested parties out of the game in a single instant! This is the day I learned the meaning of the term 'Peshat'.

[pohaikawahine]

I think that both may be necessary - all cultures and all religions seem to have both - if "pshat" weren't necessary I suppose everything would be told or written in "derash" - I believe that all religions are linked through the deeper, sacred meanings of their books, stories, legends, oral histories ... etc. When I talk to my grandson about dragons, his parents get upset because they believe that he talks of a world of fantasy and believes that dragons are real. We do speak of the inner meaning of dragons and the world of energy flows and that these are stories that tell us of a deeper knowledge - but he is not necessarily ready for the inner knowledge, he still has need of world and human experience. If I were to speak to him of the inner meaning "derash", he would probably be not as interested as much as he is when I speak of dragons in stories "pshat". I find a challenge in reading any story, or legend that appears to have such a negative quality to look for its inner meaning through its symbols, direction, sounds, and connections.

When you build a tipi in the Lakota culture, you start with 3 poles - these three poles triangle in a star - then 7 more poles are added - these represent the directions (west, north, east, south, above, below, and center) fire is at the center - this makes 10 poles, then 2 more are added - etc. Building a tipi is nothing less than re-creating or replicating a world. The "pshat" is building the tipi and a place of shelter - the "derash" is everything that is represents in terms of a cycle of knowledge and our connection in the world and universe. Hope this makes sense to others and builds on what I see as the importance of both.

In another thread I saw a discussion about the sabbath and the seven days of the week - the knowledge, as far as I know, is in the number seven and the completion of a cycle of events.

In Hawaiian legends a giant force known as Kamapua'a (a demi god who manifests as a pig) and another force known as Pele (the volcano goddess) have many raging battles and love affairs. The legends are graphic, but the inner meanings (the derash) is what we must ultimately understand. Their relationship is the merging of heaven and earth - the yin and yang of forces - in one story Pele (the volcano goddess) falls asleep and in her dreams travels to the island of Kauai (Pele goes into a deep trance and moves her thoughts and energy to her third eye - this is the sixth island in the chain of seven islands) - many ways to see the same story.

I tried to use some examples other than religious to show that the deeper level of meaning (in Hawaii we have 4 levels of meaning) the deepest is referred to as the "huna" (which means sacred not secret) of the story .... I grew up with these stories, but only much later did they take on new meanings to me .... well just my few thoughts to share .... aloha nui, pohaikawahine