Inspiring rhymes or harmful misrepresentation? The role of poetry in religion

Parashat Beshalach features the first shira (poetic passage) in the Torah, as the Israelites sang praises to God to celebrate their salvation at the splitting of the sea. Such poetic passages of praise feature heavily throughout the Tanakh, with the book of Tehillim dedicated entirely to such inspirational verse. Rambam’s cautious approach – and sometimes outright criticism – of religious poems therefore comes as something of a surprise.

First in his Moreh Nevuchim, Rambam is highly critical of “orators and poets” on account of their “corrupt imagination”. Writing in Homo Mysticus, Rabbi Jose Faur argues that this is closely linked to one of Rambam’s responsa in which he consistently opposes the recitation of piyyutim (liturgical poems) in the prayers.

Rambam’s main objection does not appear to be the content of such poems, but rather to their structure: particularly the meter and rhyme which he understands to manipulate ideas rather than present them clearly. Notably, biblical passages of verse are largely free of rhyme and meter – a phenomenon that Faur notes has parallels among leading modern poets who opt for a “purer” form of free verse. This being the case, Rambam may have been more likely to embrace the piyyutim which are recited by Ashkenazi communities, that are largely free of meter and rhyme.

Faur argues that Rambam’s reservations of how strict poetic structure can distort and manipulate religious truths reflect a central theme in Rambam’s worldview, which contrasts pagan thought – which is governed primarily by imagination and falsehood with rational monotheists who seek to develop an objectively true understanding of everything they encounter:

“Poetry is manipulative and deceptive because concepts and ideas are developed, approved, or rejected not on substantive grounds but on the trivia of rhyme and meter.”

As Judaism Reclaimed analyses, Rambam has a very particular approach to the function of regular liturgical prayer, which he understands to be designed to focus the mind, with increasing frequency, on connecting with God and divine truths (see more here). This being the case, it is of considerable importance that these truths are presented in their prayer book in the most accurate form possible, and not manipulated in order to obey the external aesthetic demands of rhyme and meter.

For those who approach prayer as being primarily intended to provide an emotional and uplifting spiritual experience, however, perhaps the opposite is true. Aesthetically pleasing poetical structures and catchy tunes, which are more suited to raising congregants to sublime spiritual meditation, ought to play a more central role in Jewish prayer. Does the structure and style of biblical poetry – most particularly the Tehillim which are recited regularly in our liturgy – present a challenge to this more spiritually-orientated approach?

And does the growing practice of minyanim to force chapters of Tehillim into catchy tunes for Kabbalat Shabbat (something which I admittedly enjoy partaking in from time to time) represent a further rejection of this Maimonidean position?

First posted on Facebook 12 January 2022, here.

The marah mitzvot: when can midrashim be treated as historical fact?

In recent years, the question of how to approach midrashic and aggadic teachings has often prompted heated debate in online Torah groups. Many contributors have grown up regarding Rashi as the primary commentary to the Chumash and are therefore strongly inclined to integrate such teachings into their understanding of the plain meaning of the text. Other peshat-enthusiasts will militantly push back against any midrashic interpretation – even when it presents itself as a historical tradition or legitimate attempt to understand an idiosyncrasy in the biblical text. 

Both Judaism Reclaimed and Talmud Reclaimed dedicate whole chapters to identifying different genres of midrash, and exploring how each has been treated by a range of traditional commentators. While instinctively my sympathies lie with the approach taken by the Rambam and Radak, which typically emphasises peshat without aggadic embellishment, I sometimes feel that enthusiasts take this too far – as an example from yesterday’s Torah reading will show. 

In a cryptic episode which follows the splitting of the sea, the parched Israelites discover water at Marah, but it turns out to be unpalatable. God instructs Moshe to cast wood into the water thereby making it drinkable, following which “He gave them a statute and an ordinance [chok umishpat]”. These terms are identical to those used elsewhere in the Torah to refer to the commandment, but there is no indication in the verses as to the nature or identity of the laws being conveyed.

An aggadic teaching, cited by Rashi, attempts to furnish the missing information:

“In Marah, He gave them some sections of the Torah so that they would busy themselves with them, namely the Sabbath, the red heifer, and laws of jurisprudence. — [from Mechilta and Sanh. 56b]” 

Writing in the third section (3:32) of Moreh Nevuchim, Rambam embraces this as a “true tradition”. Are we to suppose that Rambam possessed specific knowledge as to the historical accuracy of this teaching or does it perhaps represent a certain style of aggadah which calls out for a more literal rendering? 

There are definitely a number of textual indicators which support the historicity of this aggadah. First, in the subsequent passage concerning mannah, reference is made to a recently commanded law concerning Shabbat – despite there being no explicit mention of this anywhere in the text: 

“So he said to them, That is what God [previously] spoke, Tomorrow is a rest day, a holy Sabbath to the Lord.” [16:23] “See that the Lord has given you the Sabbath.” [16:29] 

An argument can also made from within the biblical text itself that some civil law and jurisprudence was already taught to the nation before being recorded in parashat Mishpatim. This might explain why Yitro observed the nation queuing from morning to evening for Moshe to settle disputes that had arisen between different people. Furthermore, as Rav Hirsch points out, the civil case law contained in Mishpatim are not basic rules and definitions. Rather it presents more complex scenarios which presuppose prior knowledge of primary legal principles such as duty of care, ownership and contracts. 

The most powerful indicator cited by Rambam, however, seems to be a passage in Yirmiyah (7:22-23): 

“For neither did I speak with your forefathers nor did I command them on the day I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning a burnt offering or a sacrifice. But this thing did I command them, saying: Obey Me so that I am your God and you are My people, and you walk in all the ways that I command you.” 

As explained by Rambam, these initial pre-Sinaitic teachings referred to by Yirmiyah contain God’s “primary intention” as taught at Marah; Shabbat which symbolically establishes the truth of God as Creator and civil laws which prohibit wrongdoing among the people. These are contrasted with sacrifices which were only taught later (seemingly as a secondary intention) in order to distance the Israelites from pagan belief and practice (for more on this read here).

It should be noted that the Marah midrash is certainly not the only occasion on which Rambam treats aggadic material as literal and historical. When it comes to the events surrounding Avraham’s early years and what qualified him to be addressed by God in such glowing terms at the start of Lech Lecha, Rambam relates in great detail – both in Mishneh Torah and Moreh Nevuchim – a summary of midrashim which describe his theological journey and battle with Nimrod. Perhaps on that occasion too, the midrash can be seen to be filling in a clear gap left unexplained by the biblical text. 

In fact, as Judaism Reclaimed explores, the real question may be why a matter of such fundamental importance is not including in the Torah’s account to begin with and left for the midrashim to supplement!

For more details visit www.TalmudReclaimed.com

First posted on Facebook 28 January 2024, here.