midrash session 2 (part 1)

[cellio]

Rabbi Symons (he says I may use his name here) and I continued our one-on-one midrash study this week, continuing with the Akeidah (binding of Yitzchak). In addition, I learned some new grammar and have some new questions.

This entry covers one of the two midrashim we studied (why does God say "please"?).

Quoting and translating in chunks again:

"Vayomer kach-na et binkha" - amar R' Shimon bar Aba: ein "na" ela l'shon bakashah.

Ref "And he said take please your son" - R' Shimon bar Aba said: (something the gist of which is that God doesn't need to say "please", but I can't quite translate this now even though we did. Sigh.)

("R'" is "rav" or "rabbi", and while they mean the same thing they aren't interchangable in the talmud. What's the difference? This is probably talmud 101, but I realize in writing this that I don't know.)

Mashal l'melekh basar-v'dam sheamdu alav milchamot harbeh, vhayah lo gibor echad notzecha b'khol hamilchamot.

This is analogous to the king of flesh and blood that many wars stood against him, and he had one strong victor (think champion) in all the wars. (Err, I think "notzecha" is victor? Something in that vein.)

Aside: if you see the word "mashal", that means we're about to get a parable of sorts. "Mashal l-something" is "[this is] analogous to". (The explanation of the parable is the "nimshal", though that word does not always appear explicitly.)

L'yamim amdah alav milchamah hazakah.

For many days an old war stood against him -- in other words, war dragged on.

Amar hamelekh l'oto gibor: b'vakasha mimkha, amda-li b'milchamah zo, shelo yomru: harishonot ein bahen mamash.

The king said to his champion: I request from you (this is formal language, described by the rabbi as high-falutin'), stand for me in this war, that they do not say: the previous wars were nothing really.

Grammar: I asked why "l'oto gibor" instead of "l'giboro", which both mean "to his champion". The form used here is some kind of intensifier. More grammar: "zo" is just another form of "zot" (this, feminine); the clipped form doesn't seem to mean anything.

Af hakadosh barukh hu amar l'avraham:

Thus the Holy One blessed Be He said to Avraham (we're about to get the explanation of the analogy):

nisitikha b'khamah nisinot v'amadta bkhulam, akhshav amad-li bnisayon zeh, shelo yomru: ein mamash barishonim.

I tested you several tests (less literally, I put to you several tests) and you withstood them all (translated loosely), now stand for me in this test so they do not say: the previous (tests) were nothing.

Grammar: "nisitikha" is a contraction of "nisiti ot'kha". I've certainly seen objects pasted onto the ends of verbs before, but for some reason this one stopped me cold. Maybe I mostly see it on imperatives, not past-tense verbs?

I was also tripped up by "nisayon", specifically by the nun at the end. I know that the verb for "test" is "nisah" and this sure looked like that root (in noun form) from context, but the spelling's different. This happens with drop-letter roots sometimes, and the rabbi pointed out the dageish (dot) in the samech and said that this can indicate that this is what's going on. Err, I think. I think, now that I've written that, that I learned something like that at HUC a few years ago, that the placement of a dageish tells you which letter from the root has been transformed. I'll have to consult the notes from that class, unless one of my helpful readers clears it up for me first. :-) (And, while you're clearing, anything you can say about why a nun in particular would be great. Is it always a nun when a final hei gets replaced?)

Finally, I was surprised to see "akhshav" for "now"; I thought that was modern, verses "'atah" in biblical Hebrew. It turns out that "akhshav" is used in the talmud, so it's been around a while.

Ok, that's the translation and some grammar, but what does the midrash mean? Let me sum it up a little more loosely: the torah says "And God said 'take please your son'", and R' Shimon objects: what's up with God saying "please"? This is like an earthly king with a champion who has always stood for him in wars and won. Now there's a war so big that it makes the others look like nothing, and the king says "please, will you stand for me in this one too so they don't say the previous wins didn't really mean anything?" Similarly, God says to Avraham: "I've given you many tests and you've passed with flying colors, so will you please do this one big thing for me so they don't say none of that mattered?".

The rabbis say that God set ten tests for Avraham; this was the last and most difficult. I've been saying "test" here, but the root also means "prove" (which we will see in this week's portion, actually); essentially, it seems to be a real challenge that (my interpretation) the tester knows the test-ee can pass if he tries. The test here isn't "kill your kid" but rather "trust God", I think. (And no, I don't think there's only one answer.)

The mashal seems to be saying "please do this for me so we can show the world our victory", but it could also be appealing to the gibor's baser emotions -- "please do this one so they don't think you just got lucky before". Is Avraham God's soldier who just goes where he's pointed, or are Avraham and God partners? Does God need Avraham to pass this test the way the king needs the gibor to win the war? If so, whose opinion exactly is God worried about? (We do see apparent concern on God's part for what others will think later on, but I think that's a little different from this case.)

Wouldn't commanding the gibor accomplish the same thing? The war gets won, the king looks good... what's the problem? With Avraham it seems a little clearer: God wants Avraham to do this willingly, not gritting his teeth while thinking "he can smite me if I say 'no' so I'm stuck". So maybe, either way, the king needs a champion who's wiling to stand up for his king rather than just doing an assigned job.

Note that I haven't really formed opinions yet; I'm just trying to draw meaning out of the text. Which is what "midrash" means.

Comments

Simi Peters

[(Anonymous)]

Have you read Simi Peters Learning to Read Midrash? I'm a beginner myself when it comes to primary texts and I really appreciated the way this book shows how to decode midrash.

Re: Simi Peters

[cellio]

Thanks for the tip. I don't know that book, but will look for it.

[gnomi.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure if you were looking for answers to some of your questions in this post, but I have a couple, if they help.

ein "na" ela l'shon bakashah.

Directly translated, it means, "there's no 'na' except for the language of request." In other words, God does not need to make a request, as you said.

("R'" is "rav" or "rabbi", and while they mean the same thing they aren't interchangable in the talmud. What's the difference? This is probably talmud 101, but I realize in writing this that I don't know.)

From Wikipedia:

In the Talmud, the title Rav generally precedes the names of Babylonian Amoraim, whereas the title Rabbi generally precedes the names of ordained scholars in Palestine (whether Tannaim or Amoraim).[1]

Grammar: I asked why "l'oto gibor" instead of "l'giboro"

I would translate "l'oto gibor" as "to the same champion," not "to his champion." But R. Symons might have a different interpretation.

[cellio]

Always happy to receive answers, clarifications, and corrections!

"there's no 'na' except for the language of request."

Ah, thank you. That's what Rabbi Symons said too, but apparently it didn't stick well enough.

R': thanks.

I would translate "l'oto gibor" as "to the same champion," not "to his champion." But R. Symons might have a different interpretation.

He might; I don't remember now. He didn't correct this post before I made it. :-)