Prophetic Parshan

By: Jonathan Seidel

The revival of commentary: From Rashi to Nechama Leibowitz      

Why is commentary important? Commentary speaks to an interest in the commentating work. While a critic reviews the idea, the commentator adds to the chain. Summarising with nuance. Commentary has long lost its edge in the Jewish world. More criticisms are employed. More ideas less terminology. 

The crux of contemporary biblical works are derashot. They are ideas based in the Torah and what can we learn from them. Parshat Shemot mentions the horrid slavery, what can we learn about treating people or maybe an inkling into slavery. Parshat Bishalach discusses the Exodus from Egypt freeing the people, what is freedom and how does the Torah define it. This is the use of “sichot” or “derashot” or “essays”. It is common throughout and is not something new. The chasidic masters notoriously derived profound ideas from the text. The Ishbitzer’s determinism is derived from one of the parshiyot. It is heavily sermonic. A rabbinic discussion about the Torah teaching an idea that can be used in one’s life. A nice mussar lesson enshrined in glorified analysis. It is a pulpit rabbi giving his weekly sermon. Teaching how the Torah can be applicable in their congregations' lives. Inspiring them and highlighting the Torah’s connectivity to their hearts. 

Torah is a foundation to teach a point about the world. Whether it is modesty, freedom or faith. The purpose of the text is to instil values. These values are derived from the narration. Ideas blossom from the profound ancient text. It is a common theme by many traditionalists. It is the alternative to writing a systemic work. A way of highlighting one’s philosophy is to bound the text. Look, here is the text quoted from the parsha and now to derive the point extensively. The Maharal seems to be the precursor to this notion. Maharal would begin with the text and then explain the idea from it. This style caught on in chasidic circles and is a common trope amongst yeshiva rabbis publishing their thoughts on Judaism. Instead of writing a philosophy book they write it on the parsha. They collect their notes from their weekly sermons into a handbook. The tangent is of ideological notions. Conceptualising the text instead of learning it. The text is a unit. It explains an idea rather explaining itself. The many works on machshava begin with the Torah as their source but quickly move to the idea from their quote. 

The obsession with derashot takes away from parshanut. There are few commentators. Linguists focusing on the text as their predecessors did. Nahmanides may have tangentially fostered mystical ideas but it was after he had generally defended Rashi with a sound grammatical evaluation. Even Ralbag a grand logician and philosopher kept the two separate. He had his linguistic commentary and his philosophical book the Milchamot Hashem. Moderns have turned away from their predecessors. The grammarians of the early age are no more. The French scholars’ legacy is to be recalled but not to be repeated. Use their words for support of an idea just don’t provide a new one. Some part of this may be due to the faith in the legitimacy of these thinkers though each disagreed one another. Radak and Bechor Schor disagreed with Rashi despite the era and location. The role didn’t begin with Rashi nor did it end with his grand students. Yet no famed parshan (according to the long Wikipedia list) was born post-WWI. 

The yeshiva world has preoccupied with sermons while the academic side slowly creeped into the commentary world. Most probably as a response to emerging biblical criticism. The likes of Shadal, R Umberto Cassuot, R Dovid Tzvi Hoffman, R Menachem Kasher and Prof. Nechama Leibowitz of the more traditional camp. This is not to downgrade the works of Herzog and Gush. The likes of R Brandes, R Medan and R Yoel Ben-Nun among others. Yet these are among the few. The revival of Tanakh through R Menachem Leibtag and R Yoel Ben Nun is revolutionary. The work at Gush and the maggid Tanakh series is incredible. Yet this a small portion. Much of the Torah world uses the Torah to preach ideas not to learn the text. That is reserved to the academics and their disciplines. Playing with phonetics and philology. Figuring the dating of texts and its relation to other cultures. Such is an unfortunate loss to the yeshiva world. The greats of the last centuries in Malbim and R Hirsch showed the yeshiva world it could be done but it was already too late. The shift had been made and its revival is slow.

There is a return to looking at the Torah but how much of this returning to Mikra is an analysis of the text? Rather many times earlier commentates are quoted to demonstrate a specific idea. It is generally Rashi or Ibn Ezra and then on the way to bring the inspiration. Maybe it has to do with the modern generation and its need for fluff or constant stimulation. Translating a passage just to do so or tangentially articulating a syntactical relationship is just no fun. A bore without a point. There needs to be that vigour to enjoy the sermonic teaching. It needs to explicate for my life. If it doesn’t mean anything beyond the archaic terminology it is a nuisance. Who cares what it means, what is does for me that is something. What can be extrapolated not explained. The derasha is more engaging and illustrative of that which can be lectured not what can be perceived. The Torah is to be learned from not tuned nor rationalised. The greats did the hard work. The moderns use their ideas to their benefit of projecting profound lessons. 

The derasha is not a Maharal nor modern invention. Weekly sermons are but non-peshat inspirational approaches. The derashot of the Sages are at times indefensibly against the plain reading of the text. This doesn’t just mean a simple translation but a grammatical insinuation whether like Ibn Ezra or Seforno. These scholars looked at the Torah as a lexicon and evaluated it through the lens of linguistic excellence. Yet this was not the practice of the Sages (always). Since it is rather unclear which midrashim are oral fillers and which are written extrapolations. Targumim of Onkles and Yonaton ben Uziel were the earliest parshanim if Philo and the Midrashim relay their obscurity. Both parshanut and derasha have been a staple of Jewish consciousness. It is no wonder the textualists of Rashi and Tosafot took on a commentary not only of Talmud but Torah too. It was the style and ought to be continued. It was incredibly influential through the Middle Ages but has subsequently lost its edge. Seemingly philosophy and parshanut compromised for derasha. 

The beauty of commentary is not to quote others but make one’s own. R Hirsch focused on the the nuance of phonetics. If two words share two letters (a shoresh/root of each word is three laters k.r.a. and k.r.h) their meanings have a similarity. This isn’t some mystical affiliation but a pragmatic association. This focus is specifically on the text itself. While may point out another figure it is more to lend deeper into the explanation. Not to use the commentator as a springboard for an idea. The commentator just wishes to understand. There is nothing beyond the text. The text is projected and the commentator colours in the lines. What are the patterns? What is the structure? Is there a theme running? The linguistic relationship is for the sake of clarification not derivation nor inspiration. It is treacherous work making heads or tails of the text. Weather one is commenting like Rashi or like Tosafot it is hard work and requires consistent passion.

Academia has taken over this project. Yet the preoccupation with biblical criticism forces traditional scholars to enter their frame game. Playing with history, archeology and philology. Producing a diachronic record rather than a synchronic unit. The diachronic model isn’t wrong. There is much worth to it but the synchronic mode must also be revived. It shouldn’t all be about how these ideas manifest in a specific era and how legitimate the claims are. The commentator cares for none of this. He desires to understand the text in front of him. The yeshiva scholar must apply his Talmudic methodology to Torah. He must apply the textual model of the Talmud to the Torah. Mikra deserves a rejuvenation in genuine commentating. Recognising the Torah’s beauty. Connecting to its ancient oral character. Calibrating its cohesive narration. To commentate is to worry about the texts. Not only the current parsha but the rest of biblical literature. For Tanakh to be unified in the commenting effort. 

Commentary is a lost art. A way of approaching just for the text. Just for the minute detail of interpreting the text. Such hellish infiltration. Yet this is the way to understand Torah. To understand Torah is to analyse and comment. To look at the whole picture and deduce the adequate rationales for the synoptical relation. It is effortful but rewarding. It is the work of a studious and wilful individual not of the preacher.