A Promised Companion
The Rav’s talmudic biblical commentary
The Rav’s commentary on the Torah is fascinating even if not a true commentary. A unique work of textual identity imbued with philosophical prowess.
The Mesoras Harav Chumash is a running commentary of recordings and tapes compiled of the Rav’s thought. While it is organised like a commentary, the original documents were not so. Nevertheless, Lustiger did an incredible job of bringing the Rav’s ideas on the Torah to the average Jew. Transcribed in the Rav’s jargon and eloquent oeuvre. The Rav was a biblicist even if he never sat down to write a commentary. This five volume set demonstrates the clarity and beautiful array of knowledge the Rav educated to his audience. The book is like any Chumash with Onkles and Rashi yet instead of other rishonim, it is just the Rav’s texts. In quite traditional fashion, the compilation of the Rav’s thought was not catalogued into a book diversified by essays. A book called the Rav on the parsha and separating each parsha by chapter. Instead the Rav’s thought was baked into a normal Chumash as he would have liked.
Reading the first comment he made on “Breishit bara Elohim”, quickly denotes the idea of something from nothing but in jargonist fashion adds that the Torah is not a guide to metaphysics but a focus on moral imperatives, faith is to be converted into a moral norm. The ethical impulse is exemplified in the the creative onslaught. He then diverts to God’s ownership of the world from a quote in psalms. To which he then quotes a Gemara concerning a craftsman’s ownership rights over his refashioned model ending the paragraph with the machloket Rambam-Rosh. This is all to come back to something from nothing as a moral message that God owns all that he has provided man. Man has been given a loan and with each sin is committing thievery forging his right to exist. The Rav in a quick few paragraphs annotated the moral ideal of creation and through a talmudic analogy concluded with the sinful behaviour undoing the ethical gift.
On the notion of “it was night it was evening it was the first day”, Night is similar to the world for confusion. Darkness tugs at his spiritual light. Darkness is but a portion of human life. Darkness as the mundane is temporary as the sacred moving will rise once again. The Midrash points out that day one is akin to Yom Kippur, a day of renewal and absolute linkage to God. The day is a reminder that there is an inextinguishable light. In the follow up for day two, the Rav argues that time is mathematical instead of a living entity embedded in Judaism. Focusing on the biblical terminology the second day intentionally succeeds the creation of the firmament. The Rav’s approach to the spiritual cover brings nuanced ideas to the sentence of myriad philosophy. How Judaism sees the world versus how modern man or hellenism sees the world is a quintessential difference. A theme found in R Sacks’ novella.
Lustiger is careful to cite where each of these tapes or quotes derive. Many are from collections others from his past writings whether Halakhic Man or Halakhic Mind. If one is familiar with the Rav’s work across the board such a commentary seems superfluous. It is as if someone took bits and pieces from all over the spectrum and catalogued them according to the subject matter. These ideas are matched based on their similarity to the text not because they are based on the text. It isn’t too far off but these are mere quotes from his wide of array of works and then reconfigured back into the commentary. Sometimes he references the biblical text he is expounding but many a time he mentions the text in the middle of his rant or he ignores it all together. The Rav’s commentary is not a real commentary at all. It is a bunch of thoughts classified by proximity to the biblical text.
To some regard it is a bit of a letdown as the hope is to hear the Rav truly expound on the verses. Even if they are from various works, if they expound they expound. Yet many a time they may contain a similarity but are not based off that text in the slightest. It is this avenue that has much promise. The Rav’s style was never in writing a commentary though he could’ve have written one given the excess cited as categorisation proof. In that manner, the rabbinic prose utilised is worthwhile. It is fascinating that he deduced a deep philosophical idea through a halakhic idea to firmly praise the text. Acknowledging the human condition with a terminological phase. It is not only his jargon that is unique but the way he ties the themes together. It isn’t just philosophy in the colloquial sense but a riveting engagement with the intellectual themes underlying the text.
The greatness of the Rav was his ability to integrate both the philosophical and talmudic world. Yet such a disposition wasn’t all too difficult. He purely perceived the situations on conceptual grounds. Underscoring the empirical nature before unloading it through a talmudic lens. It wasn’t so much the absurdity of such a synthesis but the mere demonstration of interpreting the text in a thoughtful manner. His way wasn’t some inspiration but profound insight. It was a model of conveying a deeper truth in a halakhic way. Much of this was construed from his previous works thus no systemic structure but it is nonetheless incredible. Unique in its formulation and pristine in its analysis. The Rav combined his introspective deduction with his array of talmudic knowledge. Everything was coordinated through the halakhic dryer.
There are four points to take from this breath of wisdom. The first is Lustiger’s structure. Placing the Rav’s commentary in a normative Chumash with Rashi and Onkles. Replacing the notes in the Stone Chumash for the Rav’s commentary. This keeps the commentary traditional but fresh. Lustiger’s editorial skills also painted these words as derivations textually even if the Rav never explicitly cited these texts in his works. The commentary looks systemic while admitting that it is not. Had the Rav written a biblical commentary it would look something like this. Lustiger’s creation is one of a what if coming to life as if. The commentary looks legitimate and ought to be accepted was plausible creation. Giving the reader various tidbits from his important works. Even if the reader is unsatisfied with the commentarial notion, the Torah is a proud illustration of the Rav’s words from various sources.
The third and fourth correspond to the Rav’s work specifically. The Rav truly bridged both worlds. His ability to shed the “secular” philosophy and instead examine the biblical text as a philosophical phenomenon to be adduced in halakhic axioms is marvellous. The final point is the personal lament that despite its grand achievement, is that fact the Rav never did so. Yet it is still admirable that the Rav could’ve written one, had he been interested. There is so much potential. The Rav spent his biblical ideas meshed in various works and lectures. While it may never have been his goal to cultivate a biblical work he sure has the ability. Given the criteria pulled from his various works worked into the commentary how much more so if he had focused his talents to a commentary.
Lustiger’s formulation differs heavily from contemporary commentaries. Most of the latter are ideas brought from the text. A nice idea derived by chapter. Each parsha a chapter and each dedicated to a different idea to expound. The Rav did focus on ideas but through the halakhic prism. He would mention an idea and then analyse further with a conceptual frame of talmudic literature. Yet Lustiger doesn’t do so by chapter but by phrase. Each verse or words gets its own commentary owing to the ways of old. There are elements of the modern idea but the commentarial derivation by verse opens it to a profound analysis that corals its beauty.
Comments
Post a Comment