Torah study: confronting God - Livre d'Or — LiveJournal

Miscellaneous. Eclectic. Random. Perhaps markedly literate, or at least suffering from the compulsion to read any text that presents itself, including cereal boxes. * Blogroll * Strange words * More links * Bookies * Microblog * Recent comments * Humans only * Second degree * By topic * Cool posts * Writing * New post


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Torah study: confronting God
Tuesday, 27 July 2004 at 12:05 am

Previous Entry Next Entry

For Tisha b'Av (the fast day of the 9th Av which marks the destruction of the Temples and other bad things that have happened to the Jews throughout history), I prepared a study session on a text with some very interesting responses to such national disasters. I'm writing a post about it cos it will be of interest to some, but you're more than welcome to skip if you find this stuff totally dull and esoteric. On the other hand, if you happen to be randomly interested but don't know the background, please do ask questions if there's stuff I don't explain clearly enough.

So I decided to teach an extract from Echah Rabbah, which is a collection of midrash on the book of Lamentations. Lamentations is traditionally studied on Tisha b'Av, for the fairly obvious reason that it discusses the destruction of the first Temple. I originally learnt this midrash from R. Sheila Shulman, so she gets the credit for the bits of this that are actually scholarly and insightful. I was studying in chevruta with pseudomonas, but our minds were so symbiotic at that point that I really couldn't say how much of my thinking on this is thanks to him. Also, on this occasion I found myself studying the passage with Prof S, and she made lots of really cool contributions. And ideas from neonchameleon about divine suffering, from rahaeli about breakups, and Karen Armstrong about God went into my thinking about this piece.

This particular midrash is unusual for several reasons, most notably that midrash generally is very short, usually a few sentences to a couple of paragraphs at most, whereas this piece is approximately novella-length, and is generally agreed to have been composed by a single author, R. Shmuel bar Nachman. He lived in the 3rd century and was part of the small community of scholars who remained in the northern part of Palestine after the Jews were exiled from most of the country by the Romans in the first century, when the second Temple was also destroyed. In case this isn't obvious, he's writing about the destruction of the first Temple and the first exile, but is using this as a metaphor for his current situation during the second exile.

If anyone wants to read the actual text, there is a Hebrew version (with rather nasty formatting, but I'm afraid it's all I can find) on the Aish site. I used a translation of the short final section which R. Shulman provided (though I'm fairly certain it's not her personal translation, since it uses gendered language to talk about God, something that she would find absolute anaethema), and I translated the rest myself. I've combined both into an HTML document, where I've tried to use the markup to make stuff a bit clearer. Italics are Biblical quotations, with the normal size bit being the part that is actually cited in the midrash and the smaller text being the rest of the verse. Links are to a nice online text of the KJV for appropriate Biblical verses. And the bits that are in light grey are the bits where I'm unsure of my translation. (Any suggestions or comments on the translation are most welcome, including the bits where I'm confident!)

Since the midrash is so long, R. Shulman picked out certain especially interesting sections, and I've not tried to go beyond what she taught me. The scenario is that God is planning to allow all kinds of bad things to happen to the Israelites in order to punish them for various sins, mainly of the worshipping false gods variety. See Jeremiah or Lamentations for further details. In the midrash, various Biblical figures, including Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses and Jeremiah try to convince God to have mercy and soften the punishment that the Israelites deserve. They all plead very formally, using lots of bits of liturgy and Biblical verses, and the structure of the story is quite repetitive.

But suddenly, Rachel leaps up from her grave beside the road (she wasn't invited to the original conference between God and the Biblical bigwigs) and starts haranguing God: you're supposed to be so merciful and compassionate, but what do you know about compassion? You've never been a sister, a lover or a mother! Let me tell you something about compassion! (In the Hebrew version, which doesn't have any internal bookmarks, unfortunately, this is the section from באותה שעה קפצה רחל to the end.) I should warn you that the substance of Rachel's argument includes a fairly explicit description of Jacob and Leah's wedding night. Also, Rachel in this story is fanfic! midrash!Rachel, who doesn't bear all that much resemblance to the Biblical character, so don't be too surprised if she acts a bit unexpectedly. Anyway, this argument finally convinces God and He promises "for your sake, Rachel" that He will one day end the punishment and return the Israelites to their land to rebuild the Temple.

This is, in itself, rather a cool story. But it's the following section from towards the beginning of the midrash which I find really amazing. This takes us to the very moment when God starts to enact His planned punishment of the Israelites, with the destruction of the Temple. (This runs from בשעה שבקש הקב``ה to לא הצליח in the Hebrew version.) There is a very poignant description of God's sadness at being forced to punish His own beloved people. The angel Metatron1 tells God that it is not God's place to weep, but God demands to be left in peace to weep. The grief pictured becomes more and more intimate: first God mourns for the destruction of His House, and then for His failure as a god who is supposed to protect His people, and then for the loss of those who loved Him, and finally he compares Himself to a father bereaved of his son. The Biblical figures who are going to make speeches are called up from their graves to join God in His grief "for they know how to weep".

At the end of the section, the narrator reports, very tentatively, making it quite clear that the idea he's hinting at is extremely radical, that God laments in these words: Woe to the king, who prospered in his youth, yet did not prosper in his old age. Somehow, the omnipotent God has become an old man who has overestimated his own strength and let the situation get out of hand, and is bitterly wounded by his loss.

This, I think, is reminiscent of some radical 20th century theology about the suffering or even the death of God in the Holocaust. Prof S pointed out a very important difference: it's extremely unlikely that any modern theologian would claim that the Holocaust was a deserved punishment for the Jews' sins. This midrash is at least couched in a language that fits in with traditional expectations; it comes from a context where being orthodox was much more desirable than being radical. In my view, the way that some of this sort of rabbinic literature approaches text is similar to the way scientists have to deal with established opinion. Of course, it is possible to challenge the received view, but you can't just say, the current theory is a load of rubbish! The scientific community creates a sort of shared fiction that every new discovery builds on what has gone before; we talk about a new interpretation of the old data, or refining the old theory, even if we are actually flatly contradicting the status quo. This means that old work is not simply dismissed out of hand, but is properly addressed and challenged within the accepted framework. So this midrash doesn't say 'that old Biblical idea about people being punished for sins is a load of rubbish!'; instead, it portrays God as grief-stricken over having to inflict this punishment, rather than regarding it as a completely good thing, as the Bible would suggest, because it is just and deserved and entirely according to God's plan.

The destruction of the Temple in this midrash symbolizes the irreperable breakdown of the relationship between God and Israel. The narrative keeps repeating 'at that exact moment', really underlining that the destruction of the Temple marks a dramatic turning point. This is it, there is no turning back now. It is the moment when parents decide they are going to have nothing more to do with their children, the moment when a once-loving relationship is formally brought to an end because the people involved can no longer live with eachother. Things are extremely distressing, but perhaps not entirely hopeless; it is very rare, but it just might be that estranged families may, at some future date be able to build a new relationship, perhaps one of adults with adults who are not emotionally intertwined like parents and children, but who still care about eachother. In this midrash, we reach the point where even the all-forgiving God can not forgive us this time; if we are to have any relationship with God in future it must be on completely different terms.

1] Metatron is a very cool angel; he's formally the personification of the voice of God, or the aspect of God that does all the speaking, but sometimes, as in this story, he's more of a character, a senior angel. I think it was possibly compilerbitch who suggested that his name sounds more like a Transformer than an angel, which is a lovely image...

Moooood: pensivepensive
Tuuuuune: No music
Discussion: 6 contributions | Contribute something

Previous Entry Next Entry

Contribute something
View all comments chronologically

kathrid: default
Date:July 30th, 2004 06:02 pm (UTC)
1 hours after journal entry
I have to agree that Metatron doesn't sound like an angel at all, although the Transformer idea hadn't occurred to me before (wasn't a fan when I was young, you see). In fact when (in Good Omens) I first came across the name I almost believed that Pratchett and Gaiman had made it up, except it wouldn't have been like them at all.
(Reply to this comment) (Thread)
Date:July 31st, 2004 01:35 am (UTC)
9 hours after journal entry
The Metatron makes me think of Good Omens, too :)

That was interesting to read, thank you. I may actually go and read the midrash at some point, too...
(Reply to this comment) (Up thread) (Parent) (Thread)
shreena: Swirl from obsessiveicons
Date:July 31st, 2004 01:39 am (UTC)
9 hours after journal entry, 01:39 am (shreena's time)
It makes me think of Alan Rickman. ;)
(Reply to this comment) (Up thread) (Parent) (Thread)
pw201: default
Date:July 31st, 2004 04:51 am (UTC)
12 hours after journal entry, 04:51 am (pw201's time)
Is the picking of single verses from the prophets to back up the argument common to this sort of thing? I've seen the NT authors do that (Matthew especially: Jer 31:15 is about the Slaughter of the Innocents, according to him).

Did you see the stuff on Process Theology which I mentioned a while back? That theology seems to be about how God changes with humanity. I encountered it when I happened across ladysisyphus's journal, although she doesn't seem to have written about it for a while. It seems to be something Christian and Jewish theologians are thinking about: one of the references cited for it was Rabbi Harold Kushner's When Bad Things Happen to Good People.
(Reply to this comment) (Thread)
livredor: words
Date:July 31st, 2004 08:44 am (UTC)
16 hours after journal entry, 08:44 am (livredor's time)
Thanks for this; I was starting to think I was only going to get comments on my frivolous footnote about Metatron!

the picking of single verses from the prophets to back up the argument
I don't think the Biblical verses are meant to back up the argument as such. In a formal, legal context (which this really isn't), only verses from the Pentateuch can be used in support of a particular legal position; verses from the Prophets and Writings have no legal weight and can only be used to illustrate points.

It's more that this midrash is giving a possible interpretation / expansion of the verses it cites, rather than that it's using them as evidence for the points it's making. Or it might even simply be, I had this verse in mind when I wrote this piece. Since most of midrash (and most of Jewish scripture in general) comes from an oral tradition, some of the Biblical verses may be simply aides memoire.

The Gospel writers may well be in the same tradition; they want their narrative to sound like traditional Jewish text, which means connecting what they say to Biblical verses. Or they may be doing something different, because they want to say that the Prophets were referring specifically to the events of Jesus' life. bar Nachman is most certainly not saying 'this is the definitive interpretation of the verse from Jeremiah'; there are several different 'explanations' given even within the same section.
(Reply to this comment) (Up thread) (Parent) (Thread)
livredor: words
Date:July 31st, 2004 09:09 am (UTC)
16 hours after journal entry, 09:09 am (livredor's time)

Process Theology

Yes, I am aware of the Process Theology movement, though I don't know a great deal about the detail of it. It most certainly is something that Jewish theologians think about a lot. (I actually have a copy of the Kushner book, but I'm putting off reading it until I feel strong enough. He's very highly regarded, though.) I think this midrash is interesting precisely because it's covering a lot of the same ground, but it's very not mainstream, it's been pretty much ignored until very recently, and even now there's only a handful of people working on this. Of course, we need new stuff that speaks to our generation, but even so.

how God changes with humanity
Which is very much in line with the view of this midrash, yeah. Prof S was talking about some really interesting stuff about bridging the gap between the idea of God as all-powerful creator, and the idea of God as a moral, compassionate being with whom one can have a relationship. This is a fairly obvious theological problem, but I think her approach is quite novel: she talks about God 'catching' morality from humanity. What if God created the world according to rules that allowed the evolution of human beings who are moral and worshipful, but nothing can exist outside God, so where there is morality and interpersonal relationship, God can only be the superlative of these? Of course, this would have been in God's plan for creation originally, in that way that makes it difficult to talk about omniscience without running into paradox.
(Reply to this comment) (Up thread) (Parent) (Thread)

Contribute something
View all comments chronologically