Philosophical Multiplicity
Maharal is the prime originator of the modern machshava take. While he pleasantly surpassed many of his successors, his philosophical derivation is a common trope amongst moderns. He inspired the weekly sermon if indirectly but his philosophy is innovative and unique.
Maharal brilliantly quotes sources from all over rabbinic literature. Maharal did have a series of derashot published. His derash on Torah is one of the only essays he doesn’t open with a verse or a quote. He spells an issue and then proceeds to tackle it. His use of tradition and sources to bring his point forward is incredible. He has brief sprits of expounding his point followed by a source to substantiate it. His derash was similar to many of his contemporaries. The modern weekly sermon is a modern thing. Back then, a prospective rabbi would come speak on one of the periodic times to display his knowledge. Through his sermon whether around the holidays would test his skills. Maharal showed his expertise in this derash. Sefaria has the lengthy sermon with all its sources and boldness. Relying on sources to buttress the idea put forward. Like a shuir he began with a question and spent the rest of the sermon seeking the answer.
In his other works, he provided the various styles of machshava. Netivot Olam, Derech Chaim and Tiferet Yisroel are all written differently but incorporate similar themes. They vary on topic but also in interest. Netivot Olam is an approach to a Torah moral life categorised into various aspects of Torah. This work is quite similar to modern machshava works that divide into the main aspects of Judaism and analyse each piece. He uses “netiv” others may use the word “sha’ar” or “crach”. The first section is Torah and the second Avoda. He uses talmudic and midrashic texts to supplement his point. The focus is on this Jewish idea and is then analysed by Maharal and in the case of moderns with same degree of concentration. Each section is a different gem in Judaism. The uniqueness of Maharal is the breath of sources stringing various texts from all over into one cohesive narration.
Derech Chaim is his commentary on Masechet Avot. He already has a mussar book in Netivot Olam but this is a different approach. Instead of focusing on topics, he focuses on text. What is the Mishnah Avot teaching and then derive from there. Here he has less latitude since it is what each Mishnah is giving. The book is divided per Mishnah and he takes his time analysing each Mishnah. Like his predecessors, Avot unlike other Mishnayot is a work of philosophical inspiration. Not a Mishnah for law but morals. Maharal may have been a bit of a mystic but he never lost touch with his Ashkenazi roots of textuality which is very clear in his Gur Aryeh. Here like Nahmanides, he explains the verse. He doesn’t quote Rashi or Ibn Ezra but rather explains the text. What does the Mishnah say and then he expounds. The text is a springboard for thought only once it is interpreted. This style is a lost art. One very clear in Nahmanides’ work and demonstrated here but not all too common amongst moderns.
Tiferet Yisroel differs in its content and style from the former two. This work is specifically on the power of Torah and Mitzvot. Why not a philosophy of halakha, it is a work concerned with the profundity of Torah. Unlike Netivot Olam that has a section about Torah, this work delves into the particulars of Matan Torah and Mitzvot. There is presumably some overlap maybe even some crossover but here like some of his other works it is just point after point. Sections are complementary rather than divided by topic. It is a novella continued till the end. There are far less Gemara’s quoted. In its own irony, the book about Matan Torah focuses on Torah texts. While potentially less common this style takes one idea and spreads it around. Many like chapter titles but this a work that continues its theme through each section. Each a section a different focus but all part of the cohesive artistry.
Maharal wrote other works but focusing on these three demonstrates the variety of machshava approaches. Not just in content but in style. Two ethical-philosophical books with various approaches. Two books surveying Torah in different ways. The approach matters as the content flows through that valve. Many have taken a note from Maharal. Use machshavic derivations from parsha and holidays is expanded by many nineteenth century scholars. Many point to his mystic charm but moreover is his inspiration for more machshava. He provided numerous outlets to expound ideas which have led to the methods used today. Whether or not he was the inspiration does not take away from his efforts in paving the way. Anyone looking for some Machshava inspiration ought to read Maharal’s work if not for influencing one’s own direction in Jewish thought. Thought it seems unintentional, he merely found it fitting to write in various styles.
There is something exceptionally smooth about his incorporation of the sources. Paragraphs filled with sources without batting an eye. It doesn’t seem overloaded nor overstated. It is fluid because of his language. Many like to quote long texts of predecessors. Maharal was original and creative. He cited texts to further his point. He quoted lines to build his idea. It wasn’t shallow or underhanded but elegant and pristine. His ideas at times seem classical and tedious but his addition of talmudic ideas mixed with midrashim make for a marvellous combination. He ties in sugyas to bolster his point. There is no half-passing it. The sources are tooled not only to help him but to explain them. Here is my point, here how it fits the textual iteration. It wasn’t to derive for his own sake but to explain the Torah. Even when examining Jewish ideas he reads the verses that compel the accuracy.
Many enjoy the section or streaming ideas. Yet Maharal always paid attention to the text. In his Derech Chaim, he illuminated the text through his own calculation to then bring a point. Even in Netivot Olam he would explain his idea and then read it back into the Gemara. It wasn’t to show off his originality but understand authorial intent. To teach what the Torah meant not what he meant. He would bring inquires into his analysis deepening his quest for the peshat of the text. Linguistically challenging himself if his interpretation was correct or needed modification. Gathering sources and collecting them for proper deduction. Humbly transmitting his mediation to arrive at a conclusion. The beauty of this style whether it begins in the Nahmanidean sense or begins as an idea and returns to the text, is to never forget the text. The text is so important. Yet ideas take precedence. Text is boring so is translation. For Maharal above all else was text. He and Maharshal obsessively sought to return text to its former glory.
Maharal’s machshava is lesson in variety and ingenuity. Showcasing different possibilities. Engaging a variety of texts. Yet always bringing in the sources. Not just biblical but rabbinic. The Mishnayot and Gemaras. Do not forget those, they are seminal to Jewish thought. Most of all the pattern that persisted in all his works was textuality. Never forgetting the need to analyse the text adequately and explain in appropriately to understand the Torah and the divine word.
Comments
Post a Comment