Jewish texts I
Nov. 27th, 2018 11:22 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
livMy Bible group have been reading Song of Songs this term. It's run mostly as an academic-style reading group, we look at the text, and sometimes the chaplain brings some scholarly commentary, mostly from Cheryl Exum, and we discuss what we think about it. We got to the end of the book (it's only eight quite short chapters) and I suggested we could use the last session to read SoS as a Jewish text, if the group were keen, which they were.
So today I taught a bunch of midrashic material related to Song of Songs, to a group of people who don't have a very clear idea what midrash is, and haven't heard of the Talmud. I had a lot of fun preparing the quasi-shiur, and I think it went pretty well. So I'll put it up here in case anyone is interested.
I started by making my first proper Sefaria source sheet. Everything about this was a hundred times easier due to Sefaria <3 You can follow along the discussion with that source sheet if you like, though I can't work out how to number the different texts on Sefaria.
So, first we look at the Mishnah on Yadayim, where they discuss whether Song of Songs should be in the Bible. It's a fairly typical example of a Mishnah text. The Mishnah was compiled by R Judah the Prince, in the late 2nd century CE. He wanted to record the developments in Jewish thought from the previous 2-300 years, which was a very turbulent time with the Roman occupation and the destruction of the Temple, and the beginnings of the spread of Christianity. It tends to be really condensed, more a series of reminders and headings than detail. It records different views, in the form of conversations between people who may or may not have been historically contemporary, and rarely tells you who prevailed, just presents the arguments.
So here we have a bunch of opinions about whether the Song of Songs 'defiles the hands' ie whether it is holy enough to be included in the Biblical canon. We talked a bit about the ideas of holiness and purity and why it is that holy scriptures are considered to be defiling, but I didn't want to get too deeply into that, rather to focus on the Mishnaic debate. People noticed that most of the reasoning seems to be about who has an authoritative tradition, rather than about the content of the Song. I argued that R' Akiva's statement
Who is R' Akiva? One of the most major authorities of the Mishnah. First century, originally an illiterate shepherd who fell in love with a rich, educated woman who encouraged him to study. Supported Bar Kochba and was martyred by the Romans.
That lead me on to the really famous Gemara from Chagigah about the four who went into the orchard. But first I had to explain what the Gemara is: several hundred years of records of discussions of the Mishnah, expanding on the extremely condensed text. There's some dispute about when it was actually compiled, I tend to believe the view that says Gemara extends to the 7th century though the most traditional date is early 6th. The main version of the Gemara, both the most extensive and the one that most influenced later Jewish history, was written in Babylon, and is known as the Bavli, though a small group of rabbis continued to teach in Palestine and their version of the Gemara is the Yerushalmi. The Talmud is the compilation of Mishnah and Gemara.
My learners commented that it doesn't seem a very efficient way to do things, to write a text condensed to the point of being cryptic, and then spend the next half a millennium debating it. I said that it did keep the Jewish people together through all kinds of upheaval and persecution, because we all had this shared discussion. People wanted to know if there's commentary on the Bible as well as commentary on the Mishnah, and I said, yes, it does exist but you don't get a single redacted text until much later, commentary on the Bible is scattered around all over the place, including being quoted in the Talmud.
It's also the case that part of the reason the Talmud is so central to Judaism now is that it was printed very early in the history of printing (the first book printed in the entire continent of Africa, and one of the earliest in Europe). A Venetian Christian printer, Bomberg, printed a complete edition of the Talmud in the early 16th century, along with some commentaries and a load of typographical innovations which were completely standard until the digital era. Once printed, the Talmud was very widely circulated.
So ok, let's look at a little bit of Gemara, Chagigah 14b. I linked to Steinsaltz' amazing translation, drawing attention to the fact that only the bold text is directly connected to words in the Talmud, the rest is all Steinsaltz's explanation. We talked about the somewhat cryptic comment by R' Akiva about not saying that the marble stones are water. I said that it's quite a common trope in mystical texts from around this sort of time that people on mystical / apocalyptic journeys have to pass a series of ordeals, and the first is crossing clear stones without mistaking them for water. The chaplain connected this to the description of the floor of heaven in Exodus 24 a pavement of sapphire, like the very sky for purity, as echoed in Revelation 4 (and in front of the throne there is something like a sea of glass, like crystal), which we were reading last year. We also wondered if the story about Jesus walking on water is related to this mystical idea.
Even if we don't quite understand what is going on in this Gemara, we do get the idea that four people went on some kind of mystical journey, seeking an encounter with God, and three of them came to a bad end. Well, maybe Ben Azzai's end wasn't that bad, since the verse quoted about his death says that the death of the holy ones is precious in God's eyes. The Proverbs verse about the honey suggests that there's a right amount of mysticism, too much might make you vomit and go mad, but the right amount means that you die happy and precious to God. I am not sure about this reading, I think it's more like your previous character; if you are a great noble person like R' Akiva you can survive a direct encounter with God, otherwise it's too dangerous.
This mystical journey is connected with Song of Songs, which we know partly because the "orchard" has the rare Persian name Pardes which is also used in Song of Songs 4:13. Pardes gives us the English word Paradise, and in Hebrew too it doesn't mean just a formal garden, it means something divine. And partly because of R' Akiva's defence of why the Song should be canon: it's the Holy of Holies, it's a mystical text which gives the initiate direct insight into God's nature. It's not clear to me whether the Song of Songs itself is really in the mystical tradition, but it becomes a key text of the Jewish mystical tradition. Including in the rest of the Chagigah tractate of the Gemara, one of the most clearly mystical texts which made it into the Talmud, which is broadly anti mysticism on the whole.
We derive from this story the traditional Jewish approach to Biblical texts: there are four layers of interpretation, which are connected with PaRDeS as an acronym. Pshat, the plain meaning of the text. Remes, what can be derived directly from the text by pure logic. Drash, imaginative and homiletical understanding of the text; the word is connected to midrash. And finally Sod, the secret mystical meaning of the text, only accessible to dedicated seekers. Apparently there was a similar Christian idea of four layers, literal / historical, allegorical / doctrinal, tropological / moral and anagogical / mystical. I want to know more about that especially because the words tropological and anagogical are new to me.
Right, it's bedtime so I'll break there. The rest of the session we discussed some examples of midrashic texts on Song of Songs. I'm generally quite proud of how well it worked, especially for a group with no prior knowledge at all of Jewish text study.
So today I taught a bunch of midrashic material related to Song of Songs, to a group of people who don't have a very clear idea what midrash is, and haven't heard of the Talmud. I had a lot of fun preparing the quasi-shiur, and I think it went pretty well. So I'll put it up here in case anyone is interested.
I started by making my first proper Sefaria source sheet. Everything about this was a hundred times easier due to Sefaria <3 You can follow along the discussion with that source sheet if you like, though I can't work out how to number the different texts on Sefaria.
So, first we look at the Mishnah on Yadayim, where they discuss whether Song of Songs should be in the Bible. It's a fairly typical example of a Mishnah text. The Mishnah was compiled by R Judah the Prince, in the late 2nd century CE. He wanted to record the developments in Jewish thought from the previous 2-300 years, which was a very turbulent time with the Roman occupation and the destruction of the Temple, and the beginnings of the spread of Christianity. It tends to be really condensed, more a series of reminders and headings than detail. It records different views, in the form of conversations between people who may or may not have been historically contemporary, and rarely tells you who prevailed, just presents the arguments.
So here we have a bunch of opinions about whether the Song of Songs 'defiles the hands' ie whether it is holy enough to be included in the Biblical canon. We talked a bit about the ideas of holiness and purity and why it is that holy scriptures are considered to be defiling, but I didn't want to get too deeply into that, rather to focus on the Mishnaic debate. People noticed that most of the reasoning seems to be about who has an authoritative tradition, rather than about the content of the Song. I argued that R' Akiva's statement
For the whole world is not as worthy as the day on which the Song of Songs was given to Israel; for all the writings are holy but the Song of Songs is the holy of holiesis in fact about the contents and the value of the book.
Who is R' Akiva? One of the most major authorities of the Mishnah. First century, originally an illiterate shepherd who fell in love with a rich, educated woman who encouraged him to study. Supported Bar Kochba and was martyred by the Romans.
That lead me on to the really famous Gemara from Chagigah about the four who went into the orchard. But first I had to explain what the Gemara is: several hundred years of records of discussions of the Mishnah, expanding on the extremely condensed text. There's some dispute about when it was actually compiled, I tend to believe the view that says Gemara extends to the 7th century though the most traditional date is early 6th. The main version of the Gemara, both the most extensive and the one that most influenced later Jewish history, was written in Babylon, and is known as the Bavli, though a small group of rabbis continued to teach in Palestine and their version of the Gemara is the Yerushalmi. The Talmud is the compilation of Mishnah and Gemara.
My learners commented that it doesn't seem a very efficient way to do things, to write a text condensed to the point of being cryptic, and then spend the next half a millennium debating it. I said that it did keep the Jewish people together through all kinds of upheaval and persecution, because we all had this shared discussion. People wanted to know if there's commentary on the Bible as well as commentary on the Mishnah, and I said, yes, it does exist but you don't get a single redacted text until much later, commentary on the Bible is scattered around all over the place, including being quoted in the Talmud.
It's also the case that part of the reason the Talmud is so central to Judaism now is that it was printed very early in the history of printing (the first book printed in the entire continent of Africa, and one of the earliest in Europe). A Venetian Christian printer, Bomberg, printed a complete edition of the Talmud in the early 16th century, along with some commentaries and a load of typographical innovations which were completely standard until the digital era. Once printed, the Talmud was very widely circulated.
So ok, let's look at a little bit of Gemara, Chagigah 14b. I linked to Steinsaltz' amazing translation, drawing attention to the fact that only the bold text is directly connected to words in the Talmud, the rest is all Steinsaltz's explanation. We talked about the somewhat cryptic comment by R' Akiva about not saying that the marble stones are water. I said that it's quite a common trope in mystical texts from around this sort of time that people on mystical / apocalyptic journeys have to pass a series of ordeals, and the first is crossing clear stones without mistaking them for water. The chaplain connected this to the description of the floor of heaven in Exodus 24 a pavement of sapphire, like the very sky for purity, as echoed in Revelation 4 (and in front of the throne there is something like a sea of glass, like crystal), which we were reading last year. We also wondered if the story about Jesus walking on water is related to this mystical idea.
Even if we don't quite understand what is going on in this Gemara, we do get the idea that four people went on some kind of mystical journey, seeking an encounter with God, and three of them came to a bad end. Well, maybe Ben Azzai's end wasn't that bad, since the verse quoted about his death says that the death of the holy ones is precious in God's eyes. The Proverbs verse about the honey suggests that there's a right amount of mysticism, too much might make you vomit and go mad, but the right amount means that you die happy and precious to God. I am not sure about this reading, I think it's more like your previous character; if you are a great noble person like R' Akiva you can survive a direct encounter with God, otherwise it's too dangerous.
This mystical journey is connected with Song of Songs, which we know partly because the "orchard" has the rare Persian name Pardes which is also used in Song of Songs 4:13. Pardes gives us the English word Paradise, and in Hebrew too it doesn't mean just a formal garden, it means something divine. And partly because of R' Akiva's defence of why the Song should be canon: it's the Holy of Holies, it's a mystical text which gives the initiate direct insight into God's nature. It's not clear to me whether the Song of Songs itself is really in the mystical tradition, but it becomes a key text of the Jewish mystical tradition. Including in the rest of the Chagigah tractate of the Gemara, one of the most clearly mystical texts which made it into the Talmud, which is broadly anti mysticism on the whole.
We derive from this story the traditional Jewish approach to Biblical texts: there are four layers of interpretation, which are connected with PaRDeS as an acronym. Pshat, the plain meaning of the text. Remes, what can be derived directly from the text by pure logic. Drash, imaginative and homiletical understanding of the text; the word is connected to midrash. And finally Sod, the secret mystical meaning of the text, only accessible to dedicated seekers. Apparently there was a similar Christian idea of four layers, literal / historical, allegorical / doctrinal, tropological / moral and anagogical / mystical. I want to know more about that especially because the words tropological and anagogical are new to me.
Right, it's bedtime so I'll break there. The rest of the session we discussed some examples of midrashic texts on Song of Songs. I'm generally quite proud of how well it worked, especially for a group with no prior knowledge at all of Jewish text study.
(no subject)
Date: 2018-11-27 11:28 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2018-11-28 02:53 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2018-11-28 04:52 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2018-11-28 05:58 am (UTC)I don't know anagogy, but basically the tropological reading is quite close to what most people would call allegorical. What Christian text-study people call allegorical is the sense in which the text is an allegory showing human relationship to God. The tropological reading is the allegory from which you derive a moral that helps you in your daily life.
So, with the Prodigal Son, an allegorical reading says that the father is clearly to be read as God, and humans who sin are to be read as the prodigal, and therefore God will always forgive a sinner who asks for forgiveness. And a tropological reading says that we should accept and forgive those who return and ask for forgiveness in our own lives, and that we should ask for forgiveness if we have strayed. Neither reading excludes the other, but they are definitely two different kinds of allegory.
(no subject)
Date: 2018-11-30 12:12 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2018-11-28 01:53 pm (UTC)