In Lekh Lekha we read:
After these things the word of the Lord came to Avram in a vision, saying, Fear not, Avram; I am your shield, and your reward will be great.
And Avram said, Lord God, what will you give me, seeing I go childless, and the steward of my house is this Eliezer of Damascus?
And Avram said, Behold, to me you have given no seed; and, lo, one born in my house is my heir (i.e.Yishma’el).
And, behold, the word of the Lord came to him, saying, This shall not be your heir; but he who shall come forth from your own bowels shall be your heir.
And He brought him outside, and said, Look now toward heaven, and count the stars, if you are able to count them; and He said to him, So shall your seed be.
And he believed in the Lord; and he counted it to him for righteousness.
(Beresihis 15:1-6)
The peshat is that Avram went out and looked at the stars and saw that God promised him that his progeny would be innumerable like the stars.
R. Meir Shapiro of Lublin asks:
Why did Hashem say va’yo’mer, He said, twice?
Because when Avram went out he literally started to count the stars – 1, 2, 3…10 …100…10,000 etc. So, at that point, when Hashem sees Avram counting, another va’yo’mer is warranted and Hashem then says to Avram:
Koh Yihyeh Zarekha, So shall your seed be. May they also be so literal, pure and obedient as you are in following my commands even when the task seems impossible. This foretells the na’aseh v’nishma’ aspect of the character of ‘am yisra’el.
Sunday, November 19, 2006
Monday, November 13, 2006
Shnayim mikra v’echad targum: Why Mikra Twice?
R. Huna b. Judah says in the name of R. Ammi: A man should always complete his Parashiyos together with the congregation, [reading] twice the Hebrew text and once the [Aramaic] Targum, (Berakhos 8a)
Why do we read the Hebrew text twice and the Targum once?
Prof. Steven Fraade notes that the formulation, parashiyyot, his weekly readings, makes it clear that a person’s private reading, reviewing and translation of the reading is intended. By geonic times, however, there developed the custom in some places of fulfilling this requirement communally by reading the section twice in Hebrew and once in Aramaic in shul on Shabbos morning before kri’yas ha-Torah. (See ‘Otzar ha-Geonim, p. 19, responsa to Berakhos 8b.)
Many of the ancient targumim from Eretz Yisrael published from the Cairo Geniza contain not a continuous targum, as we find in the Dead Sea Scrolls, but each pasuk appears first in Hebrew, in its entirety, and then in Aramaic. Other Geniza texts, and later manuscripts of the other Targums, usually have simply the first word or words of the pasuk before the Aramaic translation. But they still suggest that, unlike the continuous Aramaic translations from Qumran, these were to be keyed to the reading or studying of the Torah text and not to substitute for it.
--“Rabbinic Views on the Practice of Targum”, in The Galilee in Late Antiquity, edited by Lee I. Levine, pp. 264-265.
Chazal could not see the study of Targum without the study of the Torah text, mikra.
The Taj, Kesser Torah or crown, of the ‘edot ha-mizrach contains the Torah text once, Targum Onkelos and Rav Sa’adia Gaon’s Arabic translation, in that order, for each pasuk.
The reason for repeating the Torah text twice is still not clear and requires further research.
Why do we read the Hebrew text twice and the Targum once?
Prof. Steven Fraade notes that the formulation, parashiyyot, his weekly readings, makes it clear that a person’s private reading, reviewing and translation of the reading is intended. By geonic times, however, there developed the custom in some places of fulfilling this requirement communally by reading the section twice in Hebrew and once in Aramaic in shul on Shabbos morning before kri’yas ha-Torah. (See ‘Otzar ha-Geonim, p. 19, responsa to Berakhos 8b.)
Many of the ancient targumim from Eretz Yisrael published from the Cairo Geniza contain not a continuous targum, as we find in the Dead Sea Scrolls, but each pasuk appears first in Hebrew, in its entirety, and then in Aramaic. Other Geniza texts, and later manuscripts of the other Targums, usually have simply the first word or words of the pasuk before the Aramaic translation. But they still suggest that, unlike the continuous Aramaic translations from Qumran, these were to be keyed to the reading or studying of the Torah text and not to substitute for it.
--“Rabbinic Views on the Practice of Targum”, in The Galilee in Late Antiquity, edited by Lee I. Levine, pp. 264-265.
Chazal could not see the study of Targum without the study of the Torah text, mikra.
The Taj, Kesser Torah or crown, of the ‘edot ha-mizrach contains the Torah text once, Targum Onkelos and Rav Sa’adia Gaon’s Arabic translation, in that order, for each pasuk.
The reason for repeating the Torah text twice is still not clear and requires further research.
Rambam on Chasidim and Humility
The Mishnah says: Me’od me’od he’vei she’fal ruach.
BE EXCEEDING LOWLY OF SPIRIT, FOR THE EXPECTATION OF MORTAL MAN IS [THAT HE WILL TURN TO] WORMS. (Avos, 4:4)
Why this accentuated deviation from the advocacy of a middle course?
According to Rambam: Because, for Man, being naturally over-inclined to pride, it is necessary to over-emphasize the quality of self-depreciation.
In his Commentary on the Mishnah the Rambam relates a story that he read in a book on ethics.
One of the pious (Arabic: al-fu’du’la. Hebrew: chasidim) was asked:
What was the happiest day of your life?
He said:
The day I traveled on a ship in the lowest class wearing rags. Wealthy merchants were on the boat and one them wanted to relieve himself. In view of my lowly status he urinated on me. I was amazed at his arrogance and brazenness. In truth, I was not upset in the least by his actions and I accepted it with equanimity. At that point I was very happy that I reached the level of not caring about the debasement I suffered from this flawed person and that I was able to put him out of mind.
The Rambam concludes from this: There is no doubt that this is the ultimate extreme low in spirit that Man can reach at the other end of the spectrum from the trait of pride (Arabic: at-tikbar. Hebrew: ha'ga’a’vah).
Is the Rambam praising this exceedingly humble, meek and submissive person? Is the Rambam saying that this is true chasidus that people should emulate and strive for as the ultimate level of humility?
I think not because later on in the Rambam’s commentary on this Mishnah, he quotes the Gemara:
R. Hiyya b. Ashi said in the name of Rav: A talmid chakham should possess an eighth [of pride]. R. Huna the son of R. Joshua said: [This small amount of pride] crowns him like the awn of the grain. Rava said: [A talmid chakham] who possesses [haughtiness of spirit] deserves excommunication, and if he does not possess it [some pride] he deserves excommunication (Sotah 5a).
The Rambam then concludes:
It is not fitting to go to the extreme of total shiflus because it is not a pious and good, proper trait (Arabic: min al-fa’da’il. Hebrew: ha’ma’alos).
Rashi says on the words and if he does not possess it [some pride] he deserves excommunication: A talmid chakham who has no sense of self-worth and self-respect will be unable to gain the respect and awe he needs from his community to teach and chastise them.
Some have interpreted the behavior of the chasid in this story as the Rambam’s recommended model to imitate. Clearly, we see from the Gemara and the Rambam’s conclusion that the chasid’s behavior is not desirable and in fact should be shunned. Meekness at that level is an extreme to avoid. The use of the term chasidim by the Hebrew translators of the Rambam is misleading. The source of the story may not even be a Jewish book on ethics. The Rambam may have been quoting a non-Jewish source and holding it up for disapproval.
The Rambam needs to be read very carefully, in context and with close attention to his conclusions after a long excursus.
May we all be able to find the small turn from middle path towards humility, avoid the pitfalls of ga’avah and the mistaken path of the meek.
BE EXCEEDING LOWLY OF SPIRIT, FOR THE EXPECTATION OF MORTAL MAN IS [THAT HE WILL TURN TO] WORMS. (Avos, 4:4)
Why this accentuated deviation from the advocacy of a middle course?
According to Rambam: Because, for Man, being naturally over-inclined to pride, it is necessary to over-emphasize the quality of self-depreciation.
In his Commentary on the Mishnah the Rambam relates a story that he read in a book on ethics.
One of the pious (Arabic: al-fu’du’la. Hebrew: chasidim) was asked:
What was the happiest day of your life?
He said:
The day I traveled on a ship in the lowest class wearing rags. Wealthy merchants were on the boat and one them wanted to relieve himself. In view of my lowly status he urinated on me. I was amazed at his arrogance and brazenness. In truth, I was not upset in the least by his actions and I accepted it with equanimity. At that point I was very happy that I reached the level of not caring about the debasement I suffered from this flawed person and that I was able to put him out of mind.
The Rambam concludes from this: There is no doubt that this is the ultimate extreme low in spirit that Man can reach at the other end of the spectrum from the trait of pride (Arabic: at-tikbar. Hebrew: ha'ga’a’vah).
Is the Rambam praising this exceedingly humble, meek and submissive person? Is the Rambam saying that this is true chasidus that people should emulate and strive for as the ultimate level of humility?
I think not because later on in the Rambam’s commentary on this Mishnah, he quotes the Gemara:
R. Hiyya b. Ashi said in the name of Rav: A talmid chakham should possess an eighth [of pride]. R. Huna the son of R. Joshua said: [This small amount of pride] crowns him like the awn of the grain. Rava said: [A talmid chakham] who possesses [haughtiness of spirit] deserves excommunication, and if he does not possess it [some pride] he deserves excommunication (Sotah 5a).
The Rambam then concludes:
It is not fitting to go to the extreme of total shiflus because it is not a pious and good, proper trait (Arabic: min al-fa’da’il. Hebrew: ha’ma’alos).
Rashi says on the words and if he does not possess it [some pride] he deserves excommunication: A talmid chakham who has no sense of self-worth and self-respect will be unable to gain the respect and awe he needs from his community to teach and chastise them.
Some have interpreted the behavior of the chasid in this story as the Rambam’s recommended model to imitate. Clearly, we see from the Gemara and the Rambam’s conclusion that the chasid’s behavior is not desirable and in fact should be shunned. Meekness at that level is an extreme to avoid. The use of the term chasidim by the Hebrew translators of the Rambam is misleading. The source of the story may not even be a Jewish book on ethics. The Rambam may have been quoting a non-Jewish source and holding it up for disapproval.
The Rambam needs to be read very carefully, in context and with close attention to his conclusions after a long excursus.
May we all be able to find the small turn from middle path towards humility, avoid the pitfalls of ga’avah and the mistaken path of the meek.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)