In his newly published commentary on the Haggadah, The Royal Table, Rabbi Norman Lamm asks a question on the Yerushalmi's presentation of the Four Sons. In the Mechilta, upon which the text in our Haggadah is built, the Chacham is given a detailed halachic answer while the Tam is given a simple answer. In the Yerushalmi, the opposite, though, is found. The Chacham is offered the simple answer and the Tam is presented with the detailed halachic answer. Rabbi Lamm asks: why is this so?
He explains that the Yerushalmi may be "thinking of a surrealistic period when the man who is really a hakham will come to be regarded as a tam, and when the individual who is in reality a tam will achieve the popular acclaim due to a hakham. In other words, the Yerushalmi was thinking of days such as ours." In such a world, you indeed can only give this pseudo-hakham the answer deserving of a tam and you must also be prepared to give the presumed tam the answer of the hakham.
Rabbi Lamm applies his words to many situations in our world today, such as the world conferences on human rights where clearly tyrannic dictatorships hold positions of leadership and honour while Israel, the lone, true democracy in the Middle East, is vilified. You may be able to think of others. There is sadly much truth in these words.
In many ways, Rabbi Lamm's commentary will be a welcome addition to your Seder. Luckily, even in our surrealist world, his designation as a hakham is one that is truly deserving.
Rabbi Ben Hecht
2 comments:
I believe that there is a connection between the four sons and the Arba Minim of Succot.
The Etrog is the Chacham [taste and smell], he fulfills both the ritual and the learning.
The Lulav is the Rasha [taste but no smell] a Jew who fulfills the rituals but doesn't learn, hence he is the one who states "What is this to you?" Tell me what I have to do but I don't want to learn about it. (How many Reshaim do we encounter who go through the motions?)
The Hadasim are the Tam [no taste but smell] a Jew who learns but does not observe. Therefore he says "What is this?", he wants to learn the reason but not observe the rituals.
The Aravot are the Sh'eino Yodaya Lishol [No taste no smell] he has neither ritual nor learning, so you must begin with him saying "It was what G-d did for me when I left Egypt."
Well Said! Gut Gezogt I really like this parallel
I see this as very Hirschian - namely that Prior to the Reformation, Orthodoxy had become rote perfunctory ritual
The earliest Reformers taught to THINK Jewish but not behave Jewish, to dump the rituals and to keep the ideals behind them. EG if sukkah is about Sukkat Shalom, think about "peace" and skip the ritual
Hirsch sought to do the converse. To ADD the ideals of the mitzvot to the actions, to keep doing the same thing externally - BUT to add the FEELING or the REFLECTION to the performance.
Thus the Lulav/Rasha represents the Nasseh w/o the Nishma
Early Reform attempted to do ONLY Nishma w/o the Nasseh!
Hirsch sought to restore the necessary Nishma component BACK to the Naaseh - to restore the Etrog
Note: one might still may perform the Naaseh in a perfuntory manner, so long as one reflects upon its meaning in the AFTERGLOW of its performance. While this may not be quite as ideal as performing the with kavvanah simultaneously, nevertheless it does help to restore the needed balance.
Illustration: I have just mechanically lained the Parsah. NOW I ask myself - what was it all about? IOW after that ritual I reflect upon it, or reflect upon how it transformed me or the greater tzibbur.
This reflection may be philosophical in nature -as is Rabbi Hecht's primary approach.
But this reflection may also be emotional and touchy feely - Perhaps a "Carlebach" aproach. How do I FEEL now that I've read the Parshah?
AISI Nishma encompasses all of these aftermaths, the intellectual and the emotional, communal etc.
Zissen pesach
RRW
Post a Comment