Don't miss an episode! Subscribe to the Madlik podcast: Spotify | Apple Podcasts | Google Podcasts
and Join Madlik on Clubhouse every Thursday so you can participate in our weekly live discussion of the Parsha
(יא) כִּ֚י הַמִּצְוָ֣ה הַזֹּ֔את אֲשֶׁ֛ר אָנֹכִ֥י מְצַוְּךָ֖ הַיּ֑וֹם לֹא־נִפְלֵ֥את הִוא֙ מִמְּךָ֔ וְלֹ֥א רְחֹקָ֖ה הִֽוא׃ (יב) לֹ֥א בַשָּׁמַ֖יִם הִ֑וא לֵאמֹ֗ר מִ֣י יַעֲלֶה־לָּ֤נוּ הַשָּׁמַ֙יְמָה֙ וְיִקָּחֶ֣הָ לָּ֔נוּ וְיַשְׁמִעֵ֥נוּ אֹתָ֖הּ וְנַעֲשֶֽׂנָּה׃ (יג) וְלֹא־מֵעֵ֥בֶר לַיָּ֖ם הִ֑וא לֵאמֹ֗ר מִ֣י יַעֲבׇר־לָ֜נוּ אֶל־עֵ֤בֶר הַיָּם֙ וְיִקָּחֶ֣הָ לָּ֔נוּ וְיַשְׁמִעֵ֥נוּ אֹתָ֖הּ וְנַעֲשֶֽׂנָּה׃ (יד) כִּֽי־קָר֥וֹב אֵלֶ֛יךָ הַדָּבָ֖ר מְאֹ֑ד בְּפִ֥יךָ וּבִֽלְבָבְךָ֖ לַעֲשֹׂתֽוֹ׃ {ס}
(11) Surely, this Instruction which I enjoin upon you this day is not too baffling for you, nor is it beyond reach. (12) It is not in the heavens, that you should say, “Who among us can go up to the heavens and get it for us and impart it to us, that we may observe it?” (13) Neither is it beyond the sea, that you should say, “Who among us can cross to the other side of the sea and get it for us and impart it to us, that we may observe it?” (14) No, the thing is very close to you, in your mouth and in your heart, to observe it.
Expounding the verse differently, Rava said: “It is not in heaven” means that Torah is not to be found in someone who raises his mind over it, like the heavens, i.e., he thinks his mind is above the Torah and he does not need a teacher; nor is it to be found in someone who expands his mind over it, like the sea, i.e., he thinks he knows everything there is to know about the topic he has learned. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: “It is not in heaven” means that Torah is not to be found in the haughty, those who raise their self-image as though they were in heaven. “Nor is it beyond the sea” means that it is not to be found among merchants or traders who are constantly traveling and do not have the time to study Torah properly.
עמד רבי יהושע על רגליו ואמר (דברים ל, יב) לא בשמים היא מאי לא בשמים היא אמר רבי ירמיה שכבר נתנה תורה מהר סיני אין אנו משגיחין בבת קול שכבר כתבת בהר סיני בתורה (שמות כג, ב) אחרי רבים להטות אשכחיה רבי נתן לאליהו א"ל מאי עביד קוב"ה בההיא שעתא א"ל קא חייך ואמר נצחוני בני נצחוני בני
Not in heaven
The desacralization of the world was accomplished with the tools of theology (Löwith 1949).
Old Testament monotheism since the ancient Israelites had already banned the gods from the world:
monotheism thus became the first step towards secularization.
secular Jewish thinkers also built their philosophies on the religious tradition they sought to replace.
In his famous essay, ‘The Non-Jewish Jew’, the former yeshiva student and socialist revolutionary, Isaac Deutscher, argued that those who rejected both their ancestral religion and people in favor of secular universalism had historical precursors. In a paradoxical formulation that captured something of his own identity, Deutscher wrote: Deutscher wrote: ‘The Jewish heretic who transcends Jewry belongs to a Jewish tradition’ (Deutscher 1968, p. 26).
The ‘Jewry’ that the heretic transcends is ‘Judaism’, not only the religion, but all of the traditions built up over nearly three millennia. Yet, in transcending Judaism, the heretic finds himself or herself in a different Jewish tradition, a tradition no less Jewish for being anti-traditional. See next paragraph p 342
This was a rupture facilitated by urbanization, emigration and political persecution.
To argue that they are identical, as Gauchet seems to at times, would efface what is new and revolutionary about modernity. But I want to argue that aspects of premodern thought not only anticipate their modern successors, but actually furnish arguments that might be appropriated, adapted, and transformed to fit a secular agenda.
Funkenstein’s definition of secular theology: non-theologians practicing theology. These Jewish literati, starting with Spinoza, were not rabbis, indeed many were self-consciously rebels against the rabbis.
The rabbis asserted that, with the destruction of the Temple, prophecy had ceased, left only to children and fools (on our text and the end of prophecy, see Blenkinsopp 2004
Since the Bible not only speaks the language of human beings, but from the perspective of human beings, it does not contain philosophical or astronomical knowledge, a specialized, scientific knowledge found in other books. By limiting the knowledge provided by the Bible, Ibn Ezra made the study of nature – or, at least, the supra-lunar world – a subject independent of the Bible.
Rather than reconciling science with revelation, which was the project of so many medieval Jewish, Christian, and Muslim philosophers, Ibn Ezra chose to separate them, thus rendering nature a realm autonomous from religion.
(ו) וּשְׁמַרְתֶּם֮ וַעֲשִׂיתֶם֒ כִּ֣י הִ֤וא חׇכְמַתְכֶם֙ וּבִ֣ינַתְכֶ֔ם לְעֵינֵ֖י הָעַמִּ֑ים אֲשֶׁ֣ר יִשְׁמְע֗וּן אֵ֚ת כׇּל־הַחֻקִּ֣ים הָאֵ֔לֶּה וְאָמְר֗וּ רַ֚ק עַם־חָכָ֣ם וְנָב֔וֹן הַגּ֥וֹי הַגָּד֖וֹל הַזֶּֽה׃
I say that anything that is revolting to enlightened Gentiles is forbidden to us, not just because of hilul ha-shem, but because of the command to be holy. Anything the violates the norms of enlightened human beings cannot be permitted to us, a holy nation; can there be anything forbidden for them but permitted to us? The Torah says that the nations are supposed to say: “What a great nation, with such just laws and statutes!’' But if they are on a higher level than we in their laws and norms, they will say about us: “What a foolish and disgusting nation!”
Dor Rev'i Rav Moshe Shmuel Glasner, Commentray on Hullin quoted by R. Ethan Tucker Ethical Norms as the Foundation of Torah
וְנִיכְתּוֹב בְּרֵישָׁא דְּחֹדֶשׁ רִאשׁוֹן, וַהֲדַר נִיכְתּוֹב דְּחֹדֶשׁ שֵׁנִי. אָמַר רַב מְנַשְּׁיָא בַּר תַּחְלִיפָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב: זֹאת אוֹמֶרֶת אֵין מוּקְדָּם וּמְאוּחָר בַּתּוֹרָה.
ויעבר אברם בארץ עד מקום שכם אומר לך כלל תבין אותו בכל הפרשיות הבאות בענין אברהם יצחק ויעקב והוא ענין גדול הזכירוהו רבותינו בדרך קצרה ואמרו (תנחומא ט) כל מה שאירע לאבות סימן לבנים
AND ABRAM PASSED THROUGH THE LAND. I will tell you a principle by which you will understand all the coming portions of Scripture concerning Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. It is indeed a great matter which our Rabbis mentioned briefly, saying: “Whatever has happened to the patriarchs is a sign to the children.”
אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ דְּסִכְנִין, סִימָן נָתַן לוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְאַבְרָהָם, שֶׁכָּל מַה שֶּׁאֵרַע לוֹ אֵרַע לְבָנָיו.
R. Joshua of Sikhnin was of the opinion that the Holy One, blessed be He, gave Abraham a sign that whatever happened to him would likewise happen to his descendants.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״הַעֲבֵט״, זֶה שֶׁאֵין לוֹ וְאֵינוֹ רוֹצֶה לְהִתְפַּרְנֵס, שֶׁנּוֹתְנִים לוֹ לְשׁוּם הַלְוָאָה, וְחוֹזְרִין וְנוֹתְנִין לוֹ לְשׁוּם מַתָּנָה. ״תַּעֲבִיטֶנּוּ״, זֶה שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ וְאֵינוֹ רוֹצֶה לְהִתְפַּרְנֵס, שֶׁנּוֹתְנִין לוֹ לְשׁוּם מַתָּנָה, וְחוֹזְרִין וְנִפְרָעִין הֵימֶנּוּ לְאַחַר מִיתָה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: יֵשׁ לוֹ וְאֵינוֹ רוֹצֶה לְהִתְפַּרְנֵס — אֵין נִזְקָקִין לוֹ. וְאֶלָּא מָה אֲנִי מְקַיֵּים ״תַּעֲבִיטֶנּוּ״? דִּבְּרָה תוֹרָה כִלְשׁוֹן בְּנֵי אָדָם.
The Torah Speaks in Human Language - Chapter 2 in Heschel's Heavenly Torah
RABBI AKIVA, who extracted from every jot and tittle in the text piles and piles of halakhot, believed it impossible that there be in the Torah a single superfluous word or letter. Each word, each letter issues the invitation: "Interpret me!" Even if the rules and conventions of language require that a certain word or letter complete the syntax, it is nevertheless fair game for exegesis. Thus, he interpreted every seeming redundancy, and even the coupling of a verb to its infinitive:?] "Any
man, any-man [of the seed of Aaron... of the holy-donations he is not to eat, until he is pure]"[2] (Leviticus 22:4)--this is meant to include the uncircumcised;2 "Cut off, cut off shall that person be"131 (Numbers 15:31)-*cut off" in this world.
"[again] cut off" in the future world. He even interpreted the word "saying" (in "The Lord spoke to Moses, saying"), the letter vayl] in the word ve-ratza' ["he shall pierce"] (in “HIS master shall pierce his ear" [Exodus 21:6]), and in the word u-vat ["when[5] the daughter"] (in "when the daughter of a priest" [Leviticus 21:9]),4 Even particles and prepositions such as et [accusative case particle], gam ["also"], akh ["yet"], and rak ["only"] served as grist for his exegetical mill. By contrast, Rabbi Ishmael would interpret scriptural verses in a straightforward and rational way, or through the use of the thirteen logical rules of exegesis, which also reveal what is hidden in the text by rational means. In his view, the seeming redundancies in Scripture do not imply anything substantive, for the Torah uses a style that is in keeping with the conventions of human language; for example, "you had to go, yes, go" (Genesis 31:30); “you longed, longed" (ibid.); "I was stolen, yes, stolen" (Genesis 40:15).7
Even in places where synonyms appear in the Torah, it is not intended as a substantive addition, or for any specific purpose. For example: "He shall abstain from wine and any other intoxicant" (Numbers 6:3)-"Now are not 'wine' and 'intoxi-
cant' one and the same? Yes, the Torah simply uses two synonymous terms."8 In short: the Torah speaks in human language.?
For Rabbi Ishmael, this principle governs the text of the Torah: when any passage appears in one place and is repeated in another [with some changes], the purpose of the repetition is simply to introduce those changes, and thus it is unnecessary to reinterpret that which is identical to the original. Rabbi Akiva, by contrast, believed that one must reinterpret the entire passage, not simply the new material.10 "Exegeses emanating from the school of Rabbi Ishmael are marked by their simplicity. They do not approach the text in a roundabout way, in order to extract laws by whatever means possible; they rather attempt to keep exegesis in line with the surface meaning, and do not interpret mere superfluities and redundancies."11
Rabbi Ishmael protested Rabbi Akiva's mode of exegesis. When Rabbi Akiva inferred an important law from the letter vav in the phrase u-vat ish kohen ["When the daughter of a priest"] (“Brother Ishmael, my exegesis is of the difference between
bat and u-vat"), Rabbi Ishmael said to him: "Shall we condemn this woman to be burnt just because you wish to interpret the letter vav?!"12 On the other hand, Rabbi Ishmael's method of letting the surface meaning suffice and to identify the "natural setting of the text" seemed to some of his colleagues a mark of incapacity and intellectual weakness. Once he argued with Rabbi Akiva (who, as noted above, interpreted the particle et to signify some substantive addition) as follows: "The text does not read 'When God began to create the heaven [hashamayim] and the earth [ha-aretz] but rather 'the heaven [et hashamayim] and the earth [ve-et ha-aretz]'-but this is simply the natural style of the text." Rabbi Akiva responded: ""This is not a trifling thing for you'l] (Deuteronomy 32:47)-and if it is trifling, it is so from you, i.e., from your inability to interpret it. Et hashamayim is meant to add the sun, moon, stars, and constellations, and et ha-aretz is meant to add the trees, grasses, and the Garden of Eden."17] 13
Heavenly Torah: As Refracted through the Generations Paperback – December 1, 2006
by Abraham Joshua Heschel (Author), Gordon Tucker (Translator)
Digital version: https://archive.org/details/heavenlytorahasr0000hesc
(א) רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר בִּשְׁלֹשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה מִדּוֹת הַתּוֹרָה נִדְרָֽשֶׁת:
מִקַּל וָחֹֽמֶר.
(ב) וּמִגְּ֒זֵרָה שָׁוָה.
(ג) מִבִּנְיַן אָב מִכָּתוּב אֶחָד, וּמִבִּנְיַן אָב מִשְּׁ֒נֵי כְתוּבִים.
(ד) מִכְּ֒לָל וּפְרָט.
(ה) וּמִפְּ֒רָט וּכְלָל.
(ו) כְּלָל וּפְרָט וּכְלָל אִי אַתָּה דָן אֶלָּא כְּעֵין הַפְּ֒רָט.
(ז) מִכְּ֒לָל שֶׁהוּא צָרִיךְ לִפְרָט וּמִפְּ֒רָט שֶׁהוּא צָרִיךְ לִכְלָל.
(ח) כָּל־דָּבָר שֶׁהָיָה בִּכְלָל וְיָצָא מִן הַכְּ֒לָל לְלַמֵּד לֹא לְלַמֵּד עַל עַצְמוֹ יָצָא אֶלָּא לְלַמֵּד עַל הַכְּ֒לָל כֻּלּוֹ יָצָא.
(ט) כָּל־דָּבָר שֶׁהָיָה בִּכְלָל וְיָצָא לִטְעֹן טֹֽעַן אֶחָד שֶׁהוּא כְעִנְיָנוֹ יָצָא לְהָקֵל וְלֹא לְהַחֲמִיר.
(י) כָּל־דָּבָר שֶׁהָיָה בִּכְלָל וְיָצָא לִטְעֹן טֹֽעַן אַחֵר שֶׁלֹּא כְעִנְיָנוֹ יָצָא לְהָקֵל וּלְהַחֲמִיר.
(יא) כָּל־דָּבָר שֶׁהָיָה בִּכְלָל וְיָצָא לִדּוֹן בַּדָּבָר הֶחָדָשׁ אִי אַתָּה יָכוֹל לְהַחֲזִירוֹ לִכְלָלוֹ עַד שֶׁיַּחֲזִירֶֽנּוּ הַכָּתוּב לִכְלָלוֹ בְּפֵרוּשׁ.
(יב) דָּבָר הַלָּמֵד מֵעִנְיָנוֹ וְדָבָר הַלָּמֵד מִסּוֹפוֹ.
(יג) וְכֵן שְׁנֵי כְתוּבִים הַמַּכְחִישִׁים זֶה אֶת־זֶה עַד שֶׁיָּבֹא הַכָּתוּב הַשְּׁ֒לִישִׁי וְיַכְרִֽיעַ בֵּינֵיהֶם:
(יד) יְהִי רָצוֹן מִלְּ֒פָנֶֽיךָ ה' אֱלֹקֵֽינוּ וֵאלֹקֵי אֲבוֹתֵֽינוּ שֶׁיִּבָּנֶה בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ בִּמְהֵרָה בְיָמֵֽינוּ וְתֵן חֶלְקֵֽנוּ בְּתוֹרָתֶֽךָ: וְשָׁם נַעֲבָדְךָ בְּיִרְאָה כִּימֵי עוֹלָם וּכְשָׁנִים קַדְמוֹנִיּוֹת:
(1) Rabbi Yishmael says: The Torah is expounded through thirteen methods:
1) A conclusion drawn from a minor or lenient law, to a major or more strict one.
(2) 2) A clarification based on identical words or terms in the Biblical text.
(3) 3) A principle derived from one Biblical text or from two Biblical texts.
(4) 4) A rule followed by a detail.
(5) 5) A detail followed by a rule.
(6) 6) A rule followed by a detail, which is in turn followed by a rule, may infer only what is similar to the detail.
(7) 7) When a general rule requires an explicit rule; when an explicit rule requires generalization.
(8) 8) Something included in a general rule, which was singled out to teach— was not singled out to teach about itself, but to teach (something new) concerning the rule as a whole.
(9) 9) Something that was included in a rule and was singled out in a case similar to its rule, —it was singled out to lessen not to increase the severity of the case.
(10) 10) Something that was included in a rule and was singled out in a case which is not similar to its rule, —it was singled out either to lessen or to increase the severity of the case.
(11) 11) Something that was included in a rule and was singled out for a new stipulation— does not revert to its rule unless Scripture restores it to its rule expressly.
(12) 12) A matter deduced from its context, or from a subsequent expression.
(13) 13) Also, two passages that contradict each other until a third passage reconciles them.
(14) May it be Your will Adonoy, our God and God of our fathers, that the Holy Temple be rebuilt speedily in our days: and grant us our share in Your Torah. And there we will serve You reverently as in the days of old, and in earlier years.
אמר רב יהודה אמר רב בשעה שעלה משה למרום מצאו להקב"ה שיושב וקושר כתרים לאותיות אמר לפניו רבש"ע מי מעכב על ידך אמר לו אדם אחד יש שעתיד להיות בסוף כמה דורות ועקיבא בן יוסף שמו שעתיד לדרוש על כל קוץ וקוץ תילין תילין של הלכות אמר לפניו רבש"ע הראהו לי אמר לו חזור לאחורך הלך וישב בסוף שמונה שורות ולא היה יודע מה הן אומרים תשש כחו כיון שהגיע לדבר אחד אמרו לו תלמידיו רבי מנין לך אמר להן הלכה למשה מסיני נתיישבה דעתו חזר ובא לפני הקב"ה אמר לפניו רבונו של עולם יש לך אדם כזה ואתה נותן תורה ע"י אמר לו שתוק כך עלה במחשבה לפני אמר לפניו רבונו של עולם הראיתני תורתו הראני שכרו אמר לו חזור [לאחורך] חזר לאחוריו ראה ששוקלין בשרו במקולין אמר לפניו רבש"ע זו תורה וזו שכרה א"ל שתוק כך עלה במחשבה לפני