Moses: Envoy of New Methodology

In a new book titled Moses: Envoy of God, Envoy of his People, R. Mosheh Lichtenstein -- the son and appointed successor of R. Aharon Lichtenstein -- takes readers on a fascinating journey through the life and psychological journey of Moshe Rabbenu. Yeshivat Har Etzion and its affiliate Herzog College are known for somewhat radical and innovative peshat study of the Bible. However, R. Mosheh Lichtenstein is known as being less than a fan of the new approaches (see link 4 in this post). In this book, R. Lichtenstein builds upon traditional explanations of the biblical text and midrashim to fill in many of the blanks in the narrative and to psychologically analyze the greatest of the prophets. The result is breathtaking originality and creativity, built on interpretations that are familiar.

Click here to read moreThe book consists of four sections: 1) From the burning bush to the golden calf, 2) in the wilderness of Sinai, 3) the plains of Moab, and 4) the midrash and the text -- an essay on methodology. This last section alone is, in my opinion, an important contribution to Torah literature. R. Lichtenstein explains his view of the literary character of the Bible and the further layers added on by the Oral Torah. He also addresses the human qualities of the characters of the Torah and the issue of psychologizing biblical narratives.

The whole book is written in somewhat difficult English, but I found this last section in particular difficult to understand. What follows is a relevant excerpt that I find confusing, although readers here might find it more confusing without the preceding material. Pp. 233-235, 238:

There is a well-known debate among Jewish scholars regarding the status of aggada as Torah Shebe'al Peh. In his famous disputation with the apostate Pablo Christiani, Ramban made a programmatic declaration that lowers the profile of aggada...[8]

The same opinion was held by other sages in the geonic and medieval periods. However, many other scholars supported the view that the aggada is bidning. One expression of this position is that of Rabbi Hayyim of Volozhin, in his classic Nefesh Ha-Hayyim [4:6]...

Upon reflection, though, we do not necessarily have to determine the status of the aggada by deciding whether it is human commentary upon the divine text or revealed Torah (received by Moshe and transmitted as part of the oral tradition). There is a third possibility: man expounds the text on the basis of his own reasoning (using acceptable hermeneutical principles), yet his exposition does not remain mere commentary, but becomes part-and-parcel of the Torah, as was suggested above. This position, regarding the halachic elements of Torah, found famous expression in the midrash that discusses the relationship between Moshe and the teachings of Rabbi Akiva...

Thus, just as we assign a special status and validity to the halachic drashot of the Rabbis, deeming them part of the Torah Shebe'al Peh, let us apply the same model to the aggadic midrash, and grant such midrashim the status of Torah, because they are an extension and development of the Torah Shebe'al Peh, and are based upon the Torah Shebichtav. The significance of this may be limited to granting the ontological status of Torah to aggadic midrash, deeming it part of the holy Torah. However, it may also lead to the adoption of a particular interpretative line as normative -- if a wide enough consensus were to accept it -- in a manner analogous to the halakhic process. Thus, for example, Chazal formulated a clear-cut position on the character of Esav, the observance of mitzvot by the forefathers, God's attitude to Bnei Yisrael after the sin of the Golden Calf, and many other issues that the aggada deals with. If we accept the halachic analogy, we may regard these accepted opinions as authoritative and binding...

In conclusion, we must emphasize that the present discussion is not aimed at determining whether we are committed to the aggadic midrash as a binding text, but instead emphasizes its autonomous status as Torah Shebe'al Peh, and indicates that this status has relevance in regard to the discussion of the binding validity of the aggada. Nonetheless, it should be clear that the comparison with midrash halacha does not oblgiated us to the position that midrash aggada is analogous to it, since midrash aggada is not a legally binding system that requires decisions in regard to practice, but rather a system of ideas that can accept opposing positions. Indeed, even the halachic system tolerates a multitude of ideas...

---

[8] We are well aware of the methodological problem of citing a text that was originally polemical in nature, and of the debate among historians as to whether Ramban made these statements merely to deflect the arguments of his apostate opponents, or whether he actually held this position. Personally, I cannot imagine that Ramban would have renounced any portion of the Torah Shebe'al Peh in a debate over issues of faith if he had believed it to be an integral part of the Torah Shebe'al Peh (particularly as he had other answers available with which to refute the claims of his antagonists). Moreover, he subsequently put the arguments down in writing and distributed them, without the slightest hint of reservation regarding the position he espoused...

I fail to understand this last paragraph in relation to the preceding discussion.

All in all, though, a fascinating work whose extremely original approach yields creative and enjoyable discussions that add to the understanding of the famous narratives that underly the discussion of the book.