[Be-Ahavah
U-Be-Emunah – Chukat 5772 – translated by R. Blumberg]
Question: Various Rabbis, and all sorts
of researchers, have different interpretations of the Tanach. What’s wrong with
having teachers share them all? Why must they conclude that there is only one
truth? What could be better than presenting all of the possibilities and then allowing
the students to select those that best suit them?
Answer: Our Education Ministry is not
meant to be a supermarket of ideas. Rather, upon it rests the enormous
responsibility of fostering the purity and holiness of our precious Jewish
children. It must therefore follow the tried-and-true path, and not follow
alien pathways, however prominent the personages who suggest alternative
approaches. We must follow only the guidance of our holy Torah: “Follow the
majority,” both as far as following the majority opinion amongst Rabbis, and as
far as following those who Rabbis possess the most Torah wisdom (Choshen
Mishpat 25:2; Rama). Most of our great Sages absolutely reject the idea of
introducing secular approaches, let alone heretical ideas, into the holy study
of Tanach. Rather, the task is to foster the fear of G-d, and to view the
giants of the Tanach with reverence. Moreover, study of Tanach must be based
not just on the ideas of contemporary Rabbis, but on the ideas of the Sages
down through the generations, who are infinitely greater.
Question: We want Tanach to be relevant
to the students so that they feel an attachment to it. So why not create new
interpretations that make the text relevant for the student?
Answer: Then the student isn’t studying
Tanach - he’s studying himself.
Relevance? Certainly! But
relevance to what? To the supreme image
of G-d in man? To the specialness of the
Jewish soul? Or to man’s lowly
passions?
Here I shall enlist the words of
Rabbi Yehuda Léon Askénazi, from his Sefer Perurim MeShulchan Gavoha (p. 23):
What is ‘Parshanut’ (Exegesis of
Tanach)?
There are two approaches to how
to interpret the Tanach:
1. In the first approach, the
commentator holds that the text has no logical meaning. He therefore advances his own interpretation
in order to infuse the text with meaning it never possessed in the first place.
Ultimately, however, this involves forcing the commentator’s thoughts onto the
text. That is not the traditional approach.
2. According to the traditional
definition, "Parshanut" involves transmitting to the student the
tradition that has been preserved in the Jewish memory but that has been lost
to many. It transmits a fundamental approach without which there is no
possibility of understanding a thing. In the general culture, the academic
ground rule of exegesis is that the text has no meaning per se, other than that
affixed to it by the commentator. The traditional definition, however, is that
the text being learned cannot be understood by any except those who, in advance,
have absorbed deep into their psyches the culture suited and relevant to that
text. People tend to think that exegetical
works which spring up around the original increase wisdom and knowledge. In
their view, modern man knows more than his predecessors, and a plethora of
books is a sign of an increase in knowledge compared to the original. That idea
is illusionary. In the traditional approach, precisely the opposite is the case:
Because we know less, we need more books…
The Text of the Tanach Teaches
us.
It is the text of the Tanach which
teaches Us. We do not put words in its mouth. The Tanach teaches us ideas that we
could never attain solely with our own thoughts and morality. The Tanach always transcends the absolute
ability of the human intellect. The moment you understand this, you discover
the proper approach to Torah study: The verse teaches us. It informs us of what
we must know, and not the opposite - that I fill in its words. Thus, if there is a
disagreement between the reader and the verse, the reader must be aware in
advance that the verse is right. As long as he does not understand how it is
right, he hasn’t understood a thing.
I believe I have explained this
point sufficiently. Even so, I shall quote from the Talmud on this topic: A
wise man once spoke of how much he had learned from his teachers: 'Much Torah
have I learned from them, but what I learned, compared to what they possess, cannot
even be likened to what a dog could lap out of the sea' (Sanhedrin 68a). I
don’t know if you understand this parable, but you must realize that this is
the meaning of Torah learning.
