There's a story about a Chassidic Rebbe (I believe it was about Rabbi Nachum of Chernobyl, who was a heavy-set man) who sat down in a wicker chair. The wicker chair wasn't able to bear his weight, and it tore, with the Rebbe falling through the webbing of the chair.
He mused: "It seems I'm a tzaddik as great as Ya'akov Avinu! When I sat on the chair, the holes in the seat started to argue: each one wanted that I should sit on it! So, they all decided to become one big hole, and I fell through!"
I wish I knew where to find all of these “letters and pamphlets” as the topic of peshat and drash is one that is very interesting for me.
I find this whole controversy to be very disturbing. There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding on the definition of “peshat” and the nature of Rashi’s commentary on the Torah. The scholarly studies on these topics are vast with probably hundreds of academic articles written on them. Generally, “peshat” or “peshto shel mikrah” as understood by the Rishonim and later commentators is understood to be the plain meaning of the text, taking into account elements such as grammar, syntax, and most importantly context. Rashi’s commentary is often assumed to be a peshat commentary, but this idea should be surprising to anyone familiar with it as it consists of about 2/3 midrashic material. This misunderstanding is based on a partial reading of Rashi’s programmatic statement that he makes on Beraishis 3:8 – “אני לא באתי אלא לפשוטו של מקרא ולאגדה המתישבת דברי המקרא”. For some reason people only see the first half of this statement and think that Rashi is only coming to explain peshat. But he is actually saying that he is doing two things: peshat and midrashim. Many of Rashi’s comments include both aspects, for example, in parshas Shemos “ותשלח את אמתה”. Most school children know the midrash that Rashi quotes from the Talmud that Paroh’s daughter’s arm miraculously extended, but Rashi also states a peshat comment that אמתה refers to her maidservant. From the many examples where Rashi contrasts peshat and derash we can see the difference between them. In the example of the rocks arguing it is clear that Rashi himself would consider this one of his midrashic interpretations. So for someone to argue that we must accept Rashi’s comment as peshat is quite bizarre.
Incidentally, the chumash פשוטו של מקרא is not an exclusively peshat oriented work. Several of its interpretations are midrashic, for example, that the servant Avraham sent to find a wife for Yitzchak was Eliezer and that when the Torah describes Yaakov as a “dweller of tents” it means he was learning torah. So I don’t understand the fervent opposition to this chumash as it seems the authors are not staunchly ideological peshatists, but rather suggest peshat interpretations where Rashi quotes midrashic ones. It should be no more controversial than the Rashbam’s commentary.
You wonder if R. Feldman actually believes that the world was supernatural long ago, or if he "believes that he believes it, even if he doesn’t actually believe it." Myself, I wonder the same thing about your claim that your personal issues caused "hundreds and possibly thousands of people [to leave] the charedi world". I would have spat out my drink in laugher, had I been drinking when I read it. Do you actually believe yourself so important, or do you merely believe you believe it, even if you don't actually believe it?
R' Feldman said a fundamental of Judaism is that miracles were commonplace for the Avos. In your paraphrase that somehow gets twisted into a totally different statement, that a fundamental of Judaism is that stones are sentient. These are two very different ideas. I'm surprised to see you grossly misrepresent what R' Feldman said. Whether open miracles were in fact commonplace for the Avos can legitimately be questioned, but there's no need to distort R' Feldman's position.
On a related note, I'm not sure why you think it is specifically a Charedi maximalist view of miracles that drives people away from Judaism. You mock "extraordinary and bizarre miracles", but fundamentally we frum Jews accept extraordinary miracles. In a sense, the rest of the discussion is simply details around how often and for whom miracles occur. For someone struggling with Orthodox Judaism in the modern world and wondering where there is room for miracles in an orderly, scientific universe, does it really matter whether he is being asked to accept the Charedi view that stones talked or the more modest view you propose where you "only" have to accept ten plagues, the sea splitting, and food miraculously provided in the middle of the desert six days a week for forty years? Somehow I don't think so.
The midrash upon which Rashi is based is reading the pesukim carefully. Pasuk 11 says ויקח מאבני המקום, while Pasuk 18 says ויקח את האבן. The midrash also presumes that מאבני ("from the rocks") means Yaakov took more than one. (This is where - without seeing the sefer - I assume there is a difference of opinion as to what is פשוטו של מקרא.) If that's the case, then he started with many rocks and ended up with one. *That* is where the midrash then explains how many rocks turned into one rock. (The opposite is the case with the midrash about hitting one צפרדע and it becoming multiple צפרדעים.)
Once the pesukim say what they do, the midrash then looks to teach us something about Yaakov based on the many rocks to one rock.
"Second, insisting that people have to accept extraordinary and bizarre miracles in order to be good Jews is going to drive many people away from Judaism."
The exact opposite, it is kefira and disparagement of Emunah that drives people away from Judaism. Reform/Secularist "Judaism" is not Judaism. Midrashim like these are an absolutely vital part of Emunah, whether you take them literally or not, which is why Rashi brings them. We see the results of a society, a "Jewish" ideology that thinks like you, and we are repulsed.
You are aware that the Mesillas Yesharim at the beginning of the book brings this Midrash to prove that the world serves the tzadikim. This lesson is what I believe Rav Aharon Feldman finds crucial.
Overwhelmingly, children raised on miraculous stories have no problem with them PROVIDED that they aren't later confronted with a skeptical environment, whether from parents, school, or an intense relationship with secular society. There are circles in which being afraid like this for the future is just crying "wolf". We need to help everyone, and for those exposed to skepticism it's sometimes necessary to de-miracle-ize stories, where authorities allow.
"Peshuto Shel Mikra, a very popular five-volume work which offers... traditional interpretations WHICH ARE CLOSE TO THE PLAIN MEANING of Scripture."
I am I the only one who is picking up on the outright kefira insinuated in this sentence?? The message seems quite loud that even the simple interpretations offered by the Rishonim are not really the 'real' interpretation. Just 'close' to the 'plain meaning'. But the plain meaning is how Kugel understands it. Or the Sadducees. Or the Karaites. But not the 'traditional interpretations'.
It looks to me like you somewhat misrepresent what he is saying. You say "First is that they dethrone Rashi as being the sole legitimate peshat." While he does say that his first issue is that the book argues with Rashi on what is "peshuto shel mikra", he clearly does not mean this in the sense of what is a legitimate peshat, but what is the 'basic' peshat, i.e. the default position. You are (seemingly) using peshat in the colloquial sense of "an interpretation" (e.g. "here's a nice peshat") whereas he is using it in the more specific sense of "the basic interpretation" (e.g. "zeh peshuto..."). He clearly says he is happy for the other peshat to be quoted as a "yesh omrim", i.e. he says it is fine to learn it, just that "the mesorah" says that Rashi is the basic peshat.
To me this is quite a big difference. It means that where you say "it is absolutely crucial to Judaism to teach that there were sentient stones arguing and jostling about which one should move to the desired position." he is insisting that this be taught as the basic peshat in the pasuk, but not that you can't also say "some people say that it actually means...".
(Personally I disagree, it is hard to argue that this case of the story of the stones is anything but a medrashic enterpretation. The pasuk doesn't say or really allude to it at all. But that's tangential to my point that he is clearly not claiming it as the sole peshat but the basic peshat.)
Dr, is it crucial to Judaism that the Creator of the universe appeared upon a mountain and spoke to an entire nation of people? Is it crucial to believe that all of the water in the land of Egypt turned to blood, or that a staff turned into a snake? Your ridicule of the necessity of believing in so-called sentient stones is concerning and consequential to many cores of our faith.
There's a story about a Chassidic Rebbe (I believe it was about Rabbi Nachum of Chernobyl, who was a heavy-set man) who sat down in a wicker chair. The wicker chair wasn't able to bear his weight, and it tore, with the Rebbe falling through the webbing of the chair.
He mused: "It seems I'm a tzaddik as great as Ya'akov Avinu! When I sat on the chair, the holes in the seat started to argue: each one wanted that I should sit on it! So, they all decided to become one big hole, and I fell through!"
I wish I knew where to find all of these “letters and pamphlets” as the topic of peshat and drash is one that is very interesting for me.
I find this whole controversy to be very disturbing. There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding on the definition of “peshat” and the nature of Rashi’s commentary on the Torah. The scholarly studies on these topics are vast with probably hundreds of academic articles written on them. Generally, “peshat” or “peshto shel mikrah” as understood by the Rishonim and later commentators is understood to be the plain meaning of the text, taking into account elements such as grammar, syntax, and most importantly context. Rashi’s commentary is often assumed to be a peshat commentary, but this idea should be surprising to anyone familiar with it as it consists of about 2/3 midrashic material. This misunderstanding is based on a partial reading of Rashi’s programmatic statement that he makes on Beraishis 3:8 – “אני לא באתי אלא לפשוטו של מקרא ולאגדה המתישבת דברי המקרא”. For some reason people only see the first half of this statement and think that Rashi is only coming to explain peshat. But he is actually saying that he is doing two things: peshat and midrashim. Many of Rashi’s comments include both aspects, for example, in parshas Shemos “ותשלח את אמתה”. Most school children know the midrash that Rashi quotes from the Talmud that Paroh’s daughter’s arm miraculously extended, but Rashi also states a peshat comment that אמתה refers to her maidservant. From the many examples where Rashi contrasts peshat and derash we can see the difference between them. In the example of the rocks arguing it is clear that Rashi himself would consider this one of his midrashic interpretations. So for someone to argue that we must accept Rashi’s comment as peshat is quite bizarre.
Incidentally, the chumash פשוטו של מקרא is not an exclusively peshat oriented work. Several of its interpretations are midrashic, for example, that the servant Avraham sent to find a wife for Yitzchak was Eliezer and that when the Torah describes Yaakov as a “dweller of tents” it means he was learning torah. So I don’t understand the fervent opposition to this chumash as it seems the authors are not staunchly ideological peshatists, but rather suggest peshat interpretations where Rashi quotes midrashic ones. It should be no more controversial than the Rashbam’s commentary.
You wonder if R. Feldman actually believes that the world was supernatural long ago, or if he "believes that he believes it, even if he doesn’t actually believe it." Myself, I wonder the same thing about your claim that your personal issues caused "hundreds and possibly thousands of people [to leave] the charedi world". I would have spat out my drink in laugher, had I been drinking when I read it. Do you actually believe yourself so important, or do you merely believe you believe it, even if you don't actually believe it?
R' Feldman said a fundamental of Judaism is that miracles were commonplace for the Avos. In your paraphrase that somehow gets twisted into a totally different statement, that a fundamental of Judaism is that stones are sentient. These are two very different ideas. I'm surprised to see you grossly misrepresent what R' Feldman said. Whether open miracles were in fact commonplace for the Avos can legitimately be questioned, but there's no need to distort R' Feldman's position.
On a related note, I'm not sure why you think it is specifically a Charedi maximalist view of miracles that drives people away from Judaism. You mock "extraordinary and bizarre miracles", but fundamentally we frum Jews accept extraordinary miracles. In a sense, the rest of the discussion is simply details around how often and for whom miracles occur. For someone struggling with Orthodox Judaism in the modern world and wondering where there is room for miracles in an orderly, scientific universe, does it really matter whether he is being asked to accept the Charedi view that stones talked or the more modest view you propose where you "only" have to accept ten plagues, the sea splitting, and food miraculously provided in the middle of the desert six days a week for forty years? Somehow I don't think so.
The midrash upon which Rashi is based is reading the pesukim carefully. Pasuk 11 says ויקח מאבני המקום, while Pasuk 18 says ויקח את האבן. The midrash also presumes that מאבני ("from the rocks") means Yaakov took more than one. (This is where - without seeing the sefer - I assume there is a difference of opinion as to what is פשוטו של מקרא.) If that's the case, then he started with many rocks and ended up with one. *That* is where the midrash then explains how many rocks turned into one rock. (The opposite is the case with the midrash about hitting one צפרדע and it becoming multiple צפרדעים.)
Once the pesukim say what they do, the midrash then looks to teach us something about Yaakov based on the many rocks to one rock.
If I recall, the Gur Aryeh explains the stones fighting at length, and ridicules people who think in terms of this post.
According to Rabbi Feldman, does this mean that before Rashi wrote his commentary, no one was allowed to learn Chumash?
Are they also aware that the Rashbam criticized Rashi for being overly Midrashic, and that Rashi eventually agreed?
"Second, insisting that people have to accept extraordinary and bizarre miracles in order to be good Jews is going to drive many people away from Judaism."
The exact opposite, it is kefira and disparagement of Emunah that drives people away from Judaism. Reform/Secularist "Judaism" is not Judaism. Midrashim like these are an absolutely vital part of Emunah, whether you take them literally or not, which is why Rashi brings them. We see the results of a society, a "Jewish" ideology that thinks like you, and we are repulsed.
You are aware that the Mesillas Yesharim at the beginning of the book brings this Midrash to prove that the world serves the tzadikim. This lesson is what I believe Rav Aharon Feldman finds crucial.
Overwhelmingly, children raised on miraculous stories have no problem with them PROVIDED that they aren't later confronted with a skeptical environment, whether from parents, school, or an intense relationship with secular society. There are circles in which being afraid like this for the future is just crying "wolf". We need to help everyone, and for those exposed to skepticism it's sometimes necessary to de-miracle-ize stories, where authorities allow.
Rambam says that the planets ARE sentient. R. Feldman says stones were sentient. The mystics and rationalists have made peace.
"Peshuto Shel Mikra, a very popular five-volume work which offers... traditional interpretations WHICH ARE CLOSE TO THE PLAIN MEANING of Scripture."
I am I the only one who is picking up on the outright kefira insinuated in this sentence?? The message seems quite loud that even the simple interpretations offered by the Rishonim are not really the 'real' interpretation. Just 'close' to the 'plain meaning'. But the plain meaning is how Kugel understands it. Or the Sadducees. Or the Karaites. But not the 'traditional interpretations'.
עפ"ל!
It looks to me like you somewhat misrepresent what he is saying. You say "First is that they dethrone Rashi as being the sole legitimate peshat." While he does say that his first issue is that the book argues with Rashi on what is "peshuto shel mikra", he clearly does not mean this in the sense of what is a legitimate peshat, but what is the 'basic' peshat, i.e. the default position. You are (seemingly) using peshat in the colloquial sense of "an interpretation" (e.g. "here's a nice peshat") whereas he is using it in the more specific sense of "the basic interpretation" (e.g. "zeh peshuto..."). He clearly says he is happy for the other peshat to be quoted as a "yesh omrim", i.e. he says it is fine to learn it, just that "the mesorah" says that Rashi is the basic peshat.
To me this is quite a big difference. It means that where you say "it is absolutely crucial to Judaism to teach that there were sentient stones arguing and jostling about which one should move to the desired position." he is insisting that this be taught as the basic peshat in the pasuk, but not that you can't also say "some people say that it actually means...".
(Personally I disagree, it is hard to argue that this case of the story of the stones is anything but a medrashic enterpretation. The pasuk doesn't say or really allude to it at all. But that's tangential to my point that he is clearly not claiming it as the sole peshat but the basic peshat.)
With imbibing appropriate single malt, the stones in my garden move and even levitate. I will listen more closely and note if they chat too.
never said any of the things you are PROJECTING on to me. Seriously, take your own advice: get a life. You'll sleep better.
Dr, is it crucial to Judaism that the Creator of the universe appeared upon a mountain and spoke to an entire nation of people? Is it crucial to believe that all of the water in the land of Egypt turned to blood, or that a staff turned into a snake? Your ridicule of the necessity of believing in so-called sentient stones is concerning and consequential to many cores of our faith.