Are the Rabbis "Horsin' Around"?

By: Jonathan Seidel

Bojack in his eulogy for his mother mentions an interaction with a fan who asked if a scene in his sitcom was intentional or not, explaining the deep significance behind the coffee being left. Bojack conceded but admitted that he lied and some guy on set forgot his coffee. Bojack in the same eulogy discusses the last words his mother said “I see you”. He first interprets it as his mother finally accepting him. He then ponders other bland possibilities and yet doesn’t get bummed out. It is only after ranting for a while does he realise that she was reading the ICU sign at the hospital. This conclusion causes him to spiral into anger after trying to present a pleasant speech for her. For Bojack, "I see you" was an apology and final recognition of his true self that his mother ignored throughout his life. He could never please her and in her final moment she did. Realising she meant the ICU room meant that even to her death she never recognised him. 

A similar scenario follows Spinoza’s position on miracles. Spinoza remarks that putting our modern spin on these fantastical events is naive and fallacious. We must take their environment into account. Their ignorance to science postulated their supernatural conclusion. He uses Joshua at Gibeon holding the sun at bay as an example. The prolonged daylight was due to the hail in the air explicit in the text itself. The miracle is misunderstanding but is also a valuational construct. Their religious polemic against the pagans who worshipped the sun demonstrated that their god could be stopped by man/their god. There is an inherent oscillation between scientific ignorance and philosophical truth. For Spinoza every narrator has biases and it is in this valve that this dialectic is apparent.

The record of embellishment is an infamous method of interpretation in the ancient world. Only in the recent centuries has history been written for history. It is this regard that invokes a speculation to the dogmatic underpinnings of religious texts. Are the contradictions intentional or are they careless? Fundamentalists will agree with the former, while modern scholarship would present the latter. The tosafists are a perfect version of trying to justify their customs by talmudic dialectical gymnastics. The briskers furthered the pilpul method in their analytic evaluation of Maimonides’ contradictions. This is also a move by biblical commentators and modern jurists. The positivist must harmonise the text. There can’t be any contradictions as that would demonstrate inconsistency and imperfection of the divine. 

A complimentary model of textualisaton would prove handy for solving the contradictions. Though tosafists were utilising scholastic methods such was not the case of their predecessors. The comprising effort in the talmud is about defining the law and less about the extent of justification of the French rabbis. It is not a justification of permission but of distinction. It is also does not prove that these were imaginary details. These were in fact the underlying rationale of that particular sage taking the synchronic narrative into account. Narrowly, it looks like a cop-out but that’s a semantic perspective. The same goes for biblical narratives. An organic common legal system and Mesopotamian like structure invalidates the contradictions as alternate individuals. It is a complimentary organismic model unifying the dichotomy. It is intentional in synthesising variety as a blueprint.        

The preoccupation with historical accuracy undercuts the narrational teleology. The events procured in the books were not advocating historical measures but memorial merit. Folklore was imperative to tribal affiliation but not its carbon dating. The concern was its prowess on the people. Judaism turned events into ideas. The exodus from Egypt inspired empathy toward the stranger and huts in the desert influenced coping with discomfort. The event was only as necessary as its valuational effect. Ancestral events are experienced to tap into that mindset and imbibe those ideals. The narratives are intertwined with law. The prohibition of refusing the hated son’s inheritance is linked to Jacob giving the birthright to Joseph over Reuben. The symbiotic relationship furthers the power of the story to delineate the law; a real life example of legal expression. The law is the core, while the narratives encircles.  

Rabbinic exegesis is the interpretation of the biblical text. Yet, it is the biblical text that is an interpretation of exegesis. The exegesis is the oral narration that is the Israelite framework of expression. It is the biblical text that summarises the oral framework into a written format that anthologises orality. The exegetical layer is the primal articulation of identity while the text is the secondary formalised structure. Radical interpretations or deviations from the literal sense are the transmitted heritage. The literary issues measure in the synchronic orality. Semantic phraseology is intentionally vague and incomplete due to hebraic linguistics. The blurred statement in Exodus about killing a burglar at night is derived from the Job narrative about burglars only coming out at night. The oral network spreads to the auspices of textual semiology.

Bojack’s statement follows the railing issues to the modern mind. Do we apply meaning to words? How do we apply meaning? Interpretation is a tricky subject. The esoteric measure hailed by Akiva pushed for a deeper explanation. The difference between Rabbis Akiva and Yishmael are diversified by a layered reading vs a plain reading. These varied hermeneutics derive traditionally from two different ways of understanding the text. Either they are ancestrally transmitted or they are textually sourced. Akiva sought to base his traditions in the past to enable further interpretation. Yishmael’s logic was limited but provided innovative loopholes. His logic promoted scriptural readings and devalued esoteric interpretation. Akiva authorised the traditional model to exegetically mend each word while Yishmael limited the scope to the semantic level. 

There is a limit to exegetical motivation. Words are standardly finite in interpretive capability. Ironically the traditional nor logical is connected to biblical exegesis. The lexicographical nature is present only in the Mishnah. The pharisaic reality may have gradually included such a style. Hillel and Shammi seemingly fit Yishmael and Akiva albeit in nuanced ways. Late second temple era spawned a shift in religious thinking one conservative one more liberal. The earlier mantra was mainly oral with a hint of narrational affiliation. 

Philosophically the question of what is the limit of interpretation is guided by an exoteric or esoteric agenda. Did the text really align with Akiva’s mystical intentions or more with Yishmael’s ethical motivations? Each posed his agenda as the truth. Derrida would support the indeterminacy of interpretation. His deconstruction makes room for a pluralistic hermeneutic. There is a Derridean freedom that Akiva posed relentless in pursuit of the divine. Akiva reexamined the text and offered varied possibilities. They are not necessarily incorrect just contextually different. Exegetical deviation is apparent to furthering insight. Intent cannot be conceived succinctly by the receiver, it can only be assumed. The indeterminate nature enables a deep hermeneutical link to use the text ‘improperly’. Halakhic indeterminacy voids any violence to the text. There is a connection to the original formulation that adheres to the genus. 

Bojack will never know what his mother meant but whatever he decides will forever decide the fate of his opinion of his mother. His bitter conclusion differs from his initial positive interpretation. The indeterminacy of his receptivity encourages any agenda that works for him. Overthinking is unnecessary. Embellishment though may be objectively false cannot be proven. It is up to the receiver to decide for himself. Akiva’s model does reject the plain meaning but such exposition is radical in light of the written word. The oral measure permits depth analysis. Akiva’s theories were intense but religiously intended. The divine intent is unclear. Akiva’s hermeneutics as well as his successors supplied a new perspective on religious identity.