Midrash , our understanding thus far

1. Midrash, our understanding thus far

2. Lesson: Disputes • Audience: High school seniors • Rationale: To attempt to explain what the term “dispute” refers to (same plane or different planes?), and how they arise and can be understood and potentially solved.

3. Objectives • To define and explain the terms “rationalist” and “kabbalist”. • Use these 2 schools of thought to demonstrate how differing and sometimes opposing views can either be reconciled or at least show how within each framework consistent conclusions are reached that are both correct and true.

4. Objectives continued.... • Understand if views conflict why that might be both within and between systems. • I also aim to discuss this method of thought to how and when (or if) this applies also in the historic context and provide examples of when this does seem to work and when perhaps it still leaves questions and perhaps a different approach or answer is needed.

5. Timeframe • These topics way well cover 2 or 3 lessons of around 40mins each, depending on how the topic is divided up and how the students engage with the material.

6. Procedure • I would try and make this not just a frontal teaching class. I would like to split the class of around 20 students in to groups of 5, thus creating 2 groups of kabbalists and 2 groups of rationalists. • Once we have gone over the principles above, I would give each group a different text and let them spend 25-30mins discussing and analyzing the texts according to their given methodology. • After this, each group would have a chance at the end of that lesson and into the following lesson, to demonstrate how they understood it.

7. Procedure cont.... • Once all groups are done we would compare and contrast the different methods and see what speaks more to whom. It may be (as is with me), that there are times when students are drawn more to the rationalistic approach and other times more to the kabbalisitc approach, and at times no particular preference is given.

8. Checking for success • To see how well the students have understood the material and group work, I would set them a test not just on what they themselves where discussing and the material that they were taught, but also the material from the other groups. • The aim is to ensure that they listen to each other, and don’t just focus on their text. I would perhaps include how well they discussed among themselves and interacted with each other as part of the grade, in order to teach them the importance of respecting one’s fellow students views and opinions even if they are not their own. This also serves to limit the disadvantage to those who express themselves better orally than with the written format of tests.

9. Extensions • For those interested I could provide further case studies of different complexity levels depending on the students, for them to analyse various themes and halachot based on the 2 different approaches and perhaps afford them an opportunity to debate them face to face, to give them an experience of what it might of been like to be a Tanna in those times.

10. Brief recap • Rabbi Yehuda: Kabbalistic approach • Rabbi Nechemia: Rationalistic approach • Kabbalistic: Concerned with Heavenly worlds • Rationalistic: Concerned with physical world for the most part. (also allows for miracles and acknowledges there is a point beyond which we just don’t understand).

11. EluveElu principle, how far does it go? • Halachik framework (e.g. Measurements, concepts etc) ? • Philosophical framework (e.g. Events such as what script where the 10 commandments given in, people, I.e. Keturah/Hagar?, knowledge etc)? • Rabbi Yehuda’s view on What Adam knew vs. Rabbi Nechemia. • This dispute is the corner stone of many of their disagreements.

12. What did Adam know? • Rabbi Yehuda: Adam was quasi angelic, new Torah in full. • Rabbi Nechemai: Adam was a normal human, with some knowledge of G-d, but given the intellectual tools to discern more up to what humans can do.

13. Case in point! • There is a dispute between RavYehuda and RavNechemia as to what was written in each of the luchot. • RavYehuda maintains 5 mitzvot where written on each, but RavNechemia maintains 10 on each (as in the full 10 repeated twice).

14. RavYehuda • As we know RavYehuda takes the view of the kabbalistic school of thought and so for him who views Adam as having known the whole Torah the notion that it was only appropriate to give the Torah to such elevated beings seems not to be a problem, as he may content that at Mt. Sinai the whole of the nation was worthy of such an event and was “perfected” to the extent necessary for this, reaching the level of Adam before the sin. It could be the parallelism of the 5 and 5 has kabalistic connotations as well as rational.

15. RavNechemia • For RavNechemia however, we find he holds that each tablet contained all 10 mitzvot. His explanation seems to veer much more towards the kabalistic sphere on first blush, but a closer look reveals that he is actually consistent with his logic. He, taking the rationalist approach, holds that man was not created all knowing and perfect to the extent humanly possible.

16. He holds Adam was given limited knowledge and that it would take 1000 generations for Torah to be revealed to the world. However G-d saw that humans would not handle such a long time, and might either destroy itself or need to be destroyed.

17. Exile in Egypt didn’t quite bring all of Israel to the ideal level of perfection needed to receive the Torah, but G-d desired to give it to us, perhaps we reached a minimum threshold as a community to receive it. • As the midrash relates that Moshe won the argument against the angels that exactly because we are human and can sin, we need the Torah to keep us on the straight path.

18. Whilst the angels felt that Torah should only be given to humanity when we are completely ready, Moshe said that whilst there is a level of Torah for the idea “perfected” human as far as possible for a human, there is also a level of Torah that serves mankind in its quest to attain the aforementioned state. Thus G-d should be allowed to give the Torah at this stage.

19. The double representation of 10 commandments per stone echoes the fact the Torah can be understood at different levels (on the same plane) and differing planes as well.

20. Further questions to consider? • How RavYehuda deals with the midrash as well as a kabbalistic reading of his own position of 5 mitzvot per stone would be interesting to know. • It could be that since RavYehuda holds that the “higher” level of Torah was revealed to Adam, he sees no problem with the Torah being revealed at that level, feeling no need to differentiate between the 2 tablets.

21. Kabbalistic interpretation • OhrHatorah, Shemot, Kehot, New York, p.461 says that the 10 commandment correspond to the 10 utterances with which the world was created. For through keeping the 10 commandments (which include in them all 613 commandments as illustrated by this that the 10 commandments in the Torah has 613 letters) one sustains the world. With regards to creation the verse in (Isiah 48:13) states "Even My hand laid the foundation of the earth, and My right hand measured the heavens with handbreadths; I call them, they stand together." In every hand there are 5 fingers each finger corresponding to 5 sefirot (divine attributes) which altogether correspond to the 10 sefirot through which the world was created.It is for this reason that each tablet had 5 commandments.Courtesy of Rabbi YehudaShurpin

22. Example of questions within a midrash • The question as to if Moshe divorced Tzipporah or not when he sent her back? • R. Yehoshua says he did. If so why? IF one suggests she is not Jewish, then what about her sons, why does the pasuk later call her Moshe’s wife, did she and her sons convert then when they where reunited? This was before matan Torah, was their an issue of marrying someone not Jewish? Or one could say he sent her away with a conditional get in case something happened to him, but not that she didn’t convert, as specifically came into the family of Moshe, where as R.Yehoshua generally holds Moshe did not convert yitro and his family. • RavElazar says no get, just sent back for protection.