This week's Torah learning has been sponsored by Vanessa, the first person who offered to cover the costs of my Zoom account for the year. Thank you, Vanessa!
 |
| Artwork: DALL-E's response to the prompt, "painting in the style of Van Gogh of Noah bringing an animal sacrifice" |
Noach: Shadal’s Radical Application of Dibrah Torah ki’Lshon Bnei Adam
Parashas Bereishis features a handful of “extreme” anthropomorphisms: “Let Us make man in Our Image” (1:26), “They heard the sound of Hashem-God walking in the garden” (3:6), and “Hashem regretted having made man on earth, and He was pained to His heart” (6:6). Another example can be found in Parashas Noach. After Noach emerges from the Ark and brings burnt-offerings to Hashem, we are told that “Hashem smelled the soothing fragrance” (8:21), then declared that He would no longer curse the earth or smite all living creatures. Shadal (R’ Shmuel David Luzzatto, 1800-1865), quoting Johannes Coccejus (1603-1669), explains that this anthropomorphism “signifies a sacrifice brought to make God forget His anger.” Shadal continues:
(translated from the Italian by Dani Klein, with my own underlining for emphasis)
This expression, of course, is merely an anthropomorphism suited to the popular understanding of the generation in which the Prophet (i.e. Moshe Rabbeinu) lived (על דרך דברה תורה כלשון בני אדם לפי מצב בינת אנשי הדור שהנביא עומד בו). At this point it is well to consider that the prophet Samuel told Saul, "Has the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice." [I Samuel 15:22]. From then on, we find this concept widespread in Israel; David said: – "For You delight not in sacrifice" [Psalms 51:18]; – "If I were hungry [for sacrifices], I would not tell you" [ibid. 50:12]; – "Burnt offering and sin offerings have You not required" [ibid. 40:7]. All the prophets of the Monarchic period, moreover, expatiated at length on this subject. Hence it should be clear as day that the Torah could not have been written during the Monarchic period, or from the time of Samuel onward, for the Torah speaks the language of people who were on a far lower intellectual plane than that of the Israelites of the Monarchic period (כי התורה דברה כלשון בני אדם אשר שכלם עומד במצב שפל מאוד ממצב ישראל בימי המלכים).
Before we discuss the “radical” part, let us appreciate Shadal’s main point. Shadal wrote his commentary in the wake of the Haskalah (Jewish Enlightenment), in which the Torah’s authority was challenged from all sides. Maskilim (the so-called “enlightened Jews”) claimed that the Torah was composed during the Monarchic period – specifically, during the reign of Yoshiyahu in the 7th century B.C.E. Shadal argues that if the Torah were composed during this later era, the text would evince a negative attitude towards korbanos, as we see from numerous statements made by national leaders, such as Shmuel, David, Yeshayahu, and Yirmiyahu. Shadal concludes that this positive characterization of God’s response to korbanos is a concession to the lower intellectual level of the Jews in the pre-Monarchic period, and therefore serves as evidence of the Torah’s antiquity.
It is Shadal’s opening and closing statements (underlined above) which intrigue me the most. I’m not troubled by Shadal’s assertion that the Jews in Moshe’s time were “on a far lower intellectual plane than that of the Israelites of the monarchic period.” The Jews who left Egypt had been steeped in the paganistic Egyptian culture for over two centuries. The Korban Pesach (lit. “sacrifice of skipping”) is predicated on the fact that the Jews were identical with their Egyptian masters in nearly every way and therefore needed to differentiate themselves by rejecting avodah zarah in order to merit redemption. The narratives that follow the Exodus are rife with examples of how attached Bnei Yisrael were to the Egyptian culture from whence they came. Likewise, I am not troubled by the notion that the Torah catered to the earlier generations’ attachment to korbanos. Indeed, this is the basis of the Rambam’s entire theory that korbanos as a whole are (as it were) a concession to the Jews’ attachment to the modes of worship that were ubiquitous at the time the Torah was given (see Moreh 3:32).
What I find both radical and compelling is Shadal’s application of dibrah Torah ki’lshon bnei Adam (Torah speaks in the language of man). This principle is typically invoked to explain the Torah’s use of anthropomorphisms: since it is impossible for the human intellect to have any positive knowledge of God, we are forced to speak of Him in terms which are, strictly speaking, inaccurate. Shadal takes this one step further by claiming that in some cases (at least) the Torah’s specific anthropomorphisms are tailored to the developmental level of the audience to which it was given. This methodological move has enormous implications, which I will leave the reader to consider.
______________________________
If you've gained from what you've learned here, please consider contributing to my Patreon at patreon.com/rabbischneeweiss. Alternatively, if you would like to make a direct contribution to the "Rabbi Schneeweiss Torah Content Fund," my Venmo is @Matt-Schneeweiss, and my Zelle and PayPal are mattschneeweiss at gmail.com. Even a small contribution goes a long way to covering the costs of my podcasts, and will provide me with the financial freedom to produce even more Torah content for you.
If you would like to sponsor a day's or a week's worth of content, or if you are interested in enlisting my services as a teacher or tutor, you can reach me at rabbischneeweiss at gmail.com. Thank you to my listeners for listening, thank you to my readers for reading, and thank you to my supporters for supporting my efforts to make Torah ideas available and accessible to everyone.
Be sure to check out my YouTube channel and my podcasts: "The Mishlei Podcast", "The Stoic Jew" Podcast, "Rambam Bekius" Podcast, "Machshavah Lab" Podcast, "The Tefilah Podcast" Email me if you'd like to be added to my WhatsApp group where I share all of my content and public shiur info.
It doesn't remotely resemble the notion of diberah Torah kilshon benei adam.
ReplyDeleteThe idiom was first used by Rabbi Yishma'el in his machloqes with Rabbi Aqiva about the nature of derashos. Rabbi Aqiva was darshening based on keywords. If the pasuq had an "akh", a "raq",etc... he had a mi'ut to darshen, if it had a "kol", a noun-verb doubling ("aseir ta'aseir"), etc... -- a ribui. Rabbi Aqiva tried even darshening the word "es"! Words, even words that belonged there by normal usage, were keywords for derashah. Rabbi Yishmael's school, in contrast, used kelal uperat -- rules based on the meanings of phrases. He said one couldn't use keywords because the Torah was simply written "in normal human idiom."
The Rambam extends the application of the idea of normal human idiom, but he too leaves it as being about idom. "Hand" as an idiom for strength. The flared nostrils, an idiomatic way to talk of anger. The far reach of the "outstretched arm". Even when speaking of G-d, Who has neither hand nor nostrils nor arm, such idioms were used.
But the term never went beyond taking wording as idiomatic. Saying the whole story was told belashon benei adam is a new invention that only sounds like it is grounded in a tradition by the hijacking of an existing expression to mean something new.
Hence, "radical." ;)
Delete