Comments on: Of Telling Tales and Banning Books

By: Garnel Ironheart

Garnel Ironheart — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 17:07:56 +0000

But there are limits even on the narrative section. One cannot simply take a story and say “Well, I think that this means…” without any support other than a hunch. That’s what Chrisians do with the Bible specifically because they have no mesorah to work with.

By: Yosef Kanefsky

Yosef Kanefsky — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 15:50:45 +0000

A hurried response to Garnel (I hope to be able to check the source shortly): I’m almost positive that it is Netziv, in his introduction to his commentary on humash, who teaches that in the area of Biblical interpretation – as opposed to halacha – we are granted extensive interpretative license, as there is no definitive interpretation of narrative portions, and indeed it is meritorious in terms of the mitzva of Talmud Torah to be creative. In other words, while a minority opinion may be of little but academic interest in a halachik discussion (and even this, the Mishna in Horoyot says, is an unfair characterization) the same is not true in a parshanut discussion.

By: Garnel Ironheart

Garnel Ironheart — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 18:36:55 +0000

For years I was troubled by the story of David and Batsheva and how the Gemara handled it: “Whoever says David sinned with Batsheva is in error”. It seemed almost too obvious that they were trying to whitewash events by introducing concepts not mentioned anywhere in the text (soldiers giving a get before going to war so technically she wasn’t married, etc).
I was thrilled when I read the Abarbanel on that story and discovered that he also felt that David HaMelech did sin. Ah, someone who thought like I do.
Then I read a few more commentaries and changed my mind. First of all, there are subtle indications in the text which support the version of Chazal. Secondly, they were Chazal. Did Abarbanel, genius as he was, know the mesorah better than them?
The problem with exceptional commentators like the Abarbanel is that they can be used in inappropriate ways. Someone who wants to see the sin in the story of David and Batsheva can hold up his commentary and use it to dismiss every other one – “See? Abarbanel is the only one who’s telling the truth!” There is also the context – if he’s so radically different than every other major Rishon on the subject as well as Chazal, then accepting his viewpoint wholeheartedly instead of just a single opinion against many means dismissing the many because it doesn’t suit our understanding of the text. Are we smarter than the Ramban, Rambam, Rashi, etc.?

By: Asher Lopatin

Asher Lopatin — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 16:46:22 +0000

Thanks Rav Yosef for opening up a fascinating area for discussion. I never saw it inside, but I heard from Prof. Marc Shapiro, I believe, that there were several Rishonim (Ibn Ezra?) who believed that Torah Misinai only applied to the legal parts of the Torah, not necessarily to the stories. However, that distinction would be kind of Old School since newer thinking – even in the Yeshiva world, let alone the academic world, doesn’t always make that clear distinction between hashkafa and Halacha.

By: lilee

lilee — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 16:45:15 +0000

I don’t beleive MO education will change any time soon. Therefore what do you propose in order for our children to become more creative? How about parents attending stimulating adult ed classes? Perhaps what they learn can be handed down parent to child. What a revolutiionary idea!
How do you propose getting parents to attend?

By: yosef kanefsky

yosef kanefsky — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 16:10:41 +0000

Correction: My sister was in Jerusalem in 1986, not 1981. Wow. The mists of time…