"Rabbi Zeira said: This book does not contain any ordinances about purity and impurity, no prohibitions or permissions. But then why would it be written at all? In order to teach you, how great is the reward to whomever acts out of love". -Ruth Rabba 15
ודע, כי מחלוקת בחינת בריאת העולם. כי יקר בריאת העולם - על-ידי חלל הפנוי כנ"ל, כי בלא זה היה הכל אין סוף, ולא היה מקום לבריאת העולם כנ"ל, ועל-כן צמצם האור לצדדין, ונעשה חלל הפנוי, ובתוכו ברא את הכל הבריאה, הינו הימים והדמות, על-ידי הדבור, כנזכר לעיל: בדבור ה' שמים וארץ נעשו וכו'. וכן הוא בחינת המחלוקות, כי אלו היו כל התלמידי-החכמים אחד, לא היה מקום לבריאת העולם רק על-ידי המחלוקות שביניהם, והם נחלקים זה מזה, וכל אחד מושך עצמו לצד אחר, על-ידי-זה נעשה ביניהם בחינות חלל הפנוי, שהוא בחינות צמצום האור לצדדין, שבו הוא בריאת העולם על-ידי הדבור כנ"ל, כי כל דברים שכל אחד מהם מדבר, הכל רק בשביל בריאת עולם, שנעשה על ידם בתוך החלל הפני שביניהם, כי תלמידי-חכמים בוראים את הכל על-ידי דבוריהם, כמו שכתוב: ולאמר לציון עמי אתה - אל תקרי עמי, אלא עימי, מה אנא עבדי שמיא וארעא. -לקוטי מוהרן ס"ד, ד
A mediation on this love and redemption is found in that 89th Psalm, but before I would like to turn to the two preceeding Psalms that are still attributed by the tradition to the Sons of Korach (who are believed to have been the first music directors in the Temple) . In Psalm 87 there's a prophetic and paradoxical message of the love of God for the people of Israel in an astonishing line, "אהב יהוה שערי ציון מכל משכנות יעקב" (The Lord loveth the gates of Zion / More than all the dwellings of Jacob). Last night, as I passed through the medieval Zion Gate and curiously stared at the churches in the block circumventing silently the passage in between the gate into the Jewish city and the ancient City of David, I thought for a second that this passage couldn't be right, because if the dwellings of Jacob means what the commentators say, namely any other Israelite dwelling; how could God love more the Gates of Zion that I understood to be Jerusalem, anymore than he could love any other of the dwellings in the land? The question can only be answered later. In the next Psalm, 88, there's a desperate plight in gloom, another plight by the Sons of Korach, in fact the Psalm stars with the word שיר and not מזמור, it is a song and not a Psalm because hereby no connotation of joy is included. It is already a Psalm in captivity, but what does the captivity have to do with Ruth after all? and with Shavuot? Apparently nothing, lest one could hear more than the eye can touch. What is most striking about this Psalm is not necessarily the gloom and darkness with which it clothens but rather the fact that it is an entirely individual plight, there's no 'other' involved, no 'us' or 'I and...', it is a very lonely I, and the Psalm ends with a claim that could have been made by Adam or by Cain, even by me; "הרחקת ממני אהב ורע מידעי מחשך" (Friend and companion hast Thou put far from me / And mine acquaintance into darkness).
The speaker here is not holding a grudge against God, and his claim sounds more like a statement of fact than a complain, for where is the "איה?" (where) or the "מדוע?" (wherefore) that one finds in Job or in the Prophets. In the story-telling involved about the individual plight only one question is asked with an interjection, four verses before this final statement aforementioned, "למה יהוה תזנה נפשי תסתיר פניך ממני" (Lord, why castest Thou off my soul? Why hidest Thou thy face from me?). The interpretation is the final verse above also resounds in former verses thus; "friend and companion" is possibly meant to address those to whom he had a right to look for help in his desperate plight, and "put far away from me" doesn't mean necessarily that they distanced willy-nilly but that the distance is necessary as another verse in the Psalm suggests with a syntatic juxtaposition,
"הרחקת מידעי ממני / שתני תועבות למו / כלא בלא אצא" (Thou hast put mine acquaintance far from me / Thou hast made me an abomination unto them / I am shut up, and I cannot come forth). The verse describes the condition of leper and the abomination in plural has an intensive force: an utter abomination; therefore the 'intimate friends' had to be put far away. "מידעי מחשך" (and mine acquaintance into darkness), the last sentence could also be translated as "my intimate friends are darkness", this can mean two things - either he's so abandoned that can only surround himself with the darkness as a friend or that his good friends have become this darkness, therefore are of no avail. The song ends with a definite hopelessness. Still the question of the relevance of these passages to Shavuot and therefore to Korach and Rut remains unanswered, we shall turn now to the last Psalm in this section, 89 - that which bears the interpretive intimacy with Ruth.
Psalm 89 is not a Korahite one, but a Ezrahite sang by Ethan the Ezrahite, although there's also a Korahite Ethan and it is difficult to establish any connection between Ezrahites and Korahites. It is a Psalm of meditation in the midst of national adversity, clearly divided into two different sections, the second of which breaks after the verse 39. Significant enough is to notice the features of the first part, dealing with the attributes of God in the "past", such as mercy and faithfulness ad thoroughly demonstrated to Israel. Most important here in connection the Ruth, is also the promise of David and the endurance of his throne. Paradoxically enough is the second part there's a clear exposition of the nation's vicissitudes and the overthrow of the very same kingdom promised in the first part by a victorious enemy. The contrast glitters in one's tongue so that perplexity ensues and at the end of these three Psalms one finds the Psalmist's prayer for hope for the nation. Let's turn to some important passages in this Psalm.
The second and third verses open already with the most closely connected aporias to the Book of Ruth, the famous עולם חסד יבנה, the main theme of the Psalm during this first section is in fact the "Chesed", namely the acts of love wrought for Israel out of God's goodness, albeit there's surprisingly little mention of God's exercising of mercy upon the sinfulness of the people, a theme rather recurrent in the prophets of the exile, so that one gets the impression the text is pointing toward the circumstances of the national downfall before the Babylonians but not quite there yet. Straight in the text:
חסדי יהוה עולם אשירה
לדר ודר אודיע אמונתך בפי
כי-אמרתי עולם חסד יבנה
שמים תכן אמונתך בהם
(I will sing the mercies of the Lord forever / To all generations I will make know Thy faithfulness with my mouth / For I have said: For ever is mercy built / In the very heavens Thou dost establish Thy faithfulness). The grammar of this brief text is already a cunning problem, because עולם (forever) is also understood to mean "world"; therefore the "world" (one of the most deliberately confused concepts in contemporary philosophy) is turned into a concept of time in fact linked undeniably to eternity and therefore to the end of history, or to meta-history. Only faith or belief can be a huam meta-history, a space for trascending that is seemly problematic in the face of the anti-ontological nature of the relationship of the Israelites with their world. Therefore "Forever mercy is built" is also understood as "A world of mercy he will build" and in accordance to the tradition, "A world of love he will build", love as hermeneutics of history; this is immediately confirmed two verses below, for there it is said "עד-עולם אכין זרעך ובניתי לדור-ודור כסאך סלה" (For ever will I establish thy seed, and build up thy throne to all generations).
In this passage "forever" is not rendered עולם but עד-עולם, the difference is semantically meaningful; for עד means "until" but also "eternity", in the style of a Rabbinical inquiry it is possible to ask why the word "eternity" would have to be repeated unless one of the two words have a different meaning than the obvious one? And perhaps even both have a meaning different than that abscribed. Perhaps until "the world will be established" will be possible to build the throne? But wasn't the world created already? Another possible interpretation would be "in the eternity of the world", but isn't the world created out of the cosmos (חלל) and not eternal but passing as Kohelet affirms? Clarity on the second possibility will not become feasible until the last chapter of this dialogue, so for the time being we shall return to the first one. My intuition is that by saying עולם חסד יבנה the Psalm is making clear a point unheard of before: That it is not eternity but love the world itself, St. Augustine said once that "the world is the lovers of the world", from which together with the Biblical hermeneutics I would like to propose a different reading in accordance with the secular caution of Arendt's reading, I want to say that it is love the only possible form of worldliness and therefore not trascendence in the absolute sense but of the recognition of the broken forms of both trascendence and immanence, the Kafkian devise to account for past and future, no less than for the profane and the holy. This is where the Psalm approaches in giant steps the Book of Ruth, but what does Korach have to do with this story?
In verse 21 there's mention of God having found David, "מצאתי דוד עבדי בשמן קדשי משחתיו" (I have found David my servant / With my holy oil have I annointed him), "annointed" because of course the sign that he has been chosen already to bear the stamp of the Messianic times and therefore it is assured that his kingdom will never fall, what is altogether repeated in verse 36, "אחת נשבעתי בקדשי אם-לדוד אכזב" (Once I have sworn my holiness, surely I will not false unto David) and then again the promise of never letting the kingdom fall is reassured, both in terms of "world" and "eternity" as in עולם. In contrast to עד (ad) "eternity" there's also mention in the following verse of עד (ed) "witness", "כירח יכון עולם ועד בשחק נאמן סלה" (It shall be established forever as the moon; and be steadfast as the witness in the sky) which obviously refers to David's kingdom. There can be multiple other readings of this verse, "It shall be established forever and ever as the steadfast moon in the sky forever", "It shall be established in this world and beyond it as the steadfast moon in the sky" or "The world shall be established as the steadfast moon and a witness in the sky". These possible interpretations raise more questions than this humble essay could dare attempt to tackle. The interlapse between world and sky as separate entities is very meaningful in our coinage of worldnessness, for apparently the world and the earth are two different concepts, therefore this world or worldliness based on Chesed or love, is something inside the firmament, inside the universe, inside the abyss but yet not entirely a part of it, there's a kiddush, a separation. Everything up to this point has only mentioned however, promises made in the past and in verse 39 it turns to the present.
In this verse it is clear that the people have rejected the offer of God, and alas! have rejected the Messiah! for it is written "ואתה זנחת ותמאם התעברת עם-משיחך" (But Thou hast cast off and rejected, Thou hast been wroth with Thine annointed), the annointed is of course the Messiah, how has the people then been wroth with their annointed, annointed by whom? Was it a false Messiah annointed by the people or the one of God given to them already at some point? It is interesting to notice how "wroth" can mean also "pregnant". For the following seven verses God is reproaching the attitudes of the people that have caused them being led into exile, and in verse 47 there's a slight variation from a plea made in Psalms 79 and 88 (the Korahite Psalm mentioned before) "עד-מה יהוה תסתר לנצח תבער כמו-אש חמתך" (How long, O Lord, wilt Thou hide Thyself forever? How long shall Thy wrath burn like fire?) with a philological variegance of using a different word for "forever" than our common stock "olam". This is followed by five verses in which the people are facing God and confronting him so that he will "remember" them, a plea for clemency. Verses 50 and 52 return to David and the Messianic promises once again thus: "איה חסדך הראשונים / אדני נשבעת לדוד באמונתך" (Where are Thy former mercies, O Lord? Which Thou sisar swear unto David in Thy faithfulness?), hereby returning to promises made in the first part of the Psalm and also in the previous Korahite Psalms, this verse couldn't go without the company of a Messianic claim,
"אשר חרפו אויביך יהוה אשר חרפו עקבות משיחך" (Wherewith Thine enemies have tauned, O Lord, Wherewith they have tauned the footsteps of Thy anointed); from this verse we learn (as we do both in the Book of Sh'mot) that oftentimes God attached the Messiah to the people or the people to him, among other things, just like in the conversations between God and Moses regarding the People of Israel. The last verse, which is a statement of hope would be significant for our enquiry (and I believe it is, in traditional Jewish readings) but I will leave it, as it is seemly a mere closing doxology that isn't part of the Psalm but simply the usual form of ending a Book of the Psalter. The People of Israel are in Exile, they're in need of Redemption and it certainly has to do with David and therefore it is directly connected to Ruth, henceforth to what I mentioned before, my concept of love as worldliness. But we still have to pave the way through Korach, why? Let us turn to matters at hand now.
I [Psalms 87, 88, 89]
It is certainly correct what was remarked during a dinner I attended last week, it is that there's no such a thing as 'what Judaism says' in respect to this or that issue, there's always this plurality of variegating ideas. In this spirit I
would like to say that according to some (יש אומרים) there are certain Psalms that cast some light on the Feast of the Weeks, mentioned in the Torah twice, once in the Book of Sh'mot and once in the Book of D'varim. This Shavuot festivity is intertwinted with the Passover, and thencewith a number of days are counted until the former. In between the deliverance of the Israelites from slave-bondage to the Revelation of the Torah in Mt. Sinai there're a number of significant events among which stands out in my aggadic predilection the story of Korach. In fact the Psalm most closely associated with Shavuot is Psalm 89, that contains the famous saying עולם חסד יבנה which stands in interpretive closeness to the message of the Scroll of Ruth; the central reading of the morning services during Shavuot. The link between Ruth and Shavuot is certainly not Biblical; the connection is made on the basis of the descriptions of the harvest seasson in the Scroll (for Shavuot is also the Feast of the Fruits, that in Biblical times constituted one of the three annual pilgrimages to Jerusalem in which one could individually bring the first 'Bikkurim', the first fruits taken from the seven species of the Land of Israel) and also of Ruth's desire to join the Jewish people, who are defined by their acceptance of the Torah that is the leading theological message of the holiday in modern times. Moreover Ruth is a book about love and redemption, that starts with the pilgrimage to a foreign land on account of famine, middles with the love for the stranger amidst the tents of the people and ends with David, so that the Biblical commentators would add that everything leads up in the last instance to David, and therefore to the Messianic times. The descent of the great king and poet in Israel is traced to a moabite ancestry, to a 'foreign' ancestry.
would like to say that according to some (יש אומרים) there are certain Psalms that cast some light on the Feast of the Weeks, mentioned in the Torah twice, once in the Book of Sh'mot and once in the Book of D'varim. This Shavuot festivity is intertwinted with the Passover, and thencewith a number of days are counted until the former. In between the deliverance of the Israelites from slave-bondage to the Revelation of the Torah in Mt. Sinai there're a number of significant events among which stands out in my aggadic predilection the story of Korach. In fact the Psalm most closely associated with Shavuot is Psalm 89, that contains the famous saying עולם חסד יבנה which stands in interpretive closeness to the message of the Scroll of Ruth; the central reading of the morning services during Shavuot. The link between Ruth and Shavuot is certainly not Biblical; the connection is made on the basis of the descriptions of the harvest seasson in the Scroll (for Shavuot is also the Feast of the Fruits, that in Biblical times constituted one of the three annual pilgrimages to Jerusalem in which one could individually bring the first 'Bikkurim', the first fruits taken from the seven species of the Land of Israel) and also of Ruth's desire to join the Jewish people, who are defined by their acceptance of the Torah that is the leading theological message of the holiday in modern times. Moreover Ruth is a book about love and redemption, that starts with the pilgrimage to a foreign land on account of famine, middles with the love for the stranger amidst the tents of the people and ends with David, so that the Biblical commentators would add that everything leads up in the last instance to David, and therefore to the Messianic times. The descent of the great king and poet in Israel is traced to a moabite ancestry, to a 'foreign' ancestry.
A mediation on this love and redemption is found in that 89th Psalm, but before I would like to turn to the two preceeding Psalms that are still attributed by the tradition to the Sons of Korach (who are believed to have been the first music directors in the Temple) . In Psalm 87 there's a prophetic and paradoxical message of the love of God for the people of Israel in an astonishing line, "אהב יהוה שערי ציון מכל משכנות יעקב" (The Lord loveth the gates of Zion / More than all the dwellings of Jacob). Last night, as I passed through the medieval Zion Gate and curiously stared at the churches in the block circumventing silently the passage in between the gate into the Jewish city and the ancient City of David, I thought for a second that this passage couldn't be right, because if the dwellings of Jacob means what the commentators say, namely any other Israelite dwelling; how could God love more the Gates of Zion that I understood to be Jerusalem, anymore than he could love any other of the dwellings in the land? The question can only be answered later. In the next Psalm, 88, there's a desperate plight in gloom, another plight by the Sons of Korach, in fact the Psalm stars with the word שיר and not מזמור, it is a song and not a Psalm because hereby no connotation of joy is included. It is already a Psalm in captivity, but what does the captivity have to do with Ruth after all? and with Shavuot? Apparently nothing, lest one could hear more than the eye can touch. What is most striking about this Psalm is not necessarily the gloom and darkness with which it clothens but rather the fact that it is an entirely individual plight, there's no 'other' involved, no 'us' or 'I and...', it is a very lonely I, and the Psalm ends with a claim that could have been made by Adam or by Cain, even by me; "הרחקת ממני אהב ורע מידעי מחשך" (Friend and companion hast Thou put far from me / And mine acquaintance into darkness).
The speaker here is not holding a grudge against God, and his claim sounds more like a statement of fact than a complain, for where is the "איה?" (where) or the "מדוע?" (wherefore) that one finds in Job or in the Prophets. In the story-telling involved about the individual plight only one question is asked with an interjection, four verses before this final statement aforementioned, "למה יהוה תזנה נפשי תסתיר פניך ממני" (Lord, why castest Thou off my soul? Why hidest Thou thy face from me?). The interpretation is the final verse above also resounds in former verses thus; "friend and companion" is possibly meant to address those to whom he had a right to look for help in his desperate plight, and "put far away from me" doesn't mean necessarily that they distanced willy-nilly but that the distance is necessary as another verse in the Psalm suggests with a syntatic juxtaposition,
"הרחקת מידעי ממני / שתני תועבות למו / כלא בלא אצא" (Thou hast put mine acquaintance far from me / Thou hast made me an abomination unto them / I am shut up, and I cannot come forth). The verse describes the condition of leper and the abomination in plural has an intensive force: an utter abomination; therefore the 'intimate friends' had to be put far away. "מידעי מחשך" (and mine acquaintance into darkness), the last sentence could also be translated as "my intimate friends are darkness", this can mean two things - either he's so abandoned that can only surround himself with the darkness as a friend or that his good friends have become this darkness, therefore are of no avail. The song ends with a definite hopelessness. Still the question of the relevance of these passages to Shavuot and therefore to Korach and Rut remains unanswered, we shall turn now to the last Psalm in this section, 89 - that which bears the interpretive intimacy with Ruth.
Psalm 89 is not a Korahite one, but a Ezrahite sang by Ethan the Ezrahite, although there's also a Korahite Ethan and it is difficult to establish any connection between Ezrahites and Korahites. It is a Psalm of meditation in the midst of national adversity, clearly divided into two different sections, the second of which breaks after the verse 39. Significant enough is to notice the features of the first part, dealing with the attributes of God in the "past", such as mercy and faithfulness ad thoroughly demonstrated to Israel. Most important here in connection the Ruth, is also the promise of David and the endurance of his throne. Paradoxically enough is the second part there's a clear exposition of the nation's vicissitudes and the overthrow of the very same kingdom promised in the first part by a victorious enemy. The contrast glitters in one's tongue so that perplexity ensues and at the end of these three Psalms one finds the Psalmist's prayer for hope for the nation. Let's turn to some important passages in this Psalm.
The second and third verses open already with the most closely connected aporias to the Book of Ruth, the famous עולם חסד יבנה, the main theme of the Psalm during this first section is in fact the "Chesed", namely the acts of love wrought for Israel out of God's goodness, albeit there's surprisingly little mention of God's exercising of mercy upon the sinfulness of the people, a theme rather recurrent in the prophets of the exile, so that one gets the impression the text is pointing toward the circumstances of the national downfall before the Babylonians but not quite there yet. Straight in the text:
חסדי יהוה עולם אשירה
לדר ודר אודיע אמונתך בפי
כי-אמרתי עולם חסד יבנה
שמים תכן אמונתך בהם
(I will sing the mercies of the Lord forever / To all generations I will make know Thy faithfulness with my mouth / For I have said: For ever is mercy built / In the very heavens Thou dost establish Thy faithfulness). The grammar of this brief text is already a cunning problem, because עולם (forever) is also understood to mean "world"; therefore the "world" (one of the most deliberately confused concepts in contemporary philosophy) is turned into a concept of time in fact linked undeniably to eternity and therefore to the end of history, or to meta-history. Only faith or belief can be a huam meta-history, a space for trascending that is seemly problematic in the face of the anti-ontological nature of the relationship of the Israelites with their world. Therefore "Forever mercy is built" is also understood as "A world of mercy he will build" and in accordance to the tradition, "A world of love he will build", love as hermeneutics of history; this is immediately confirmed two verses below, for there it is said "עד-עולם אכין זרעך ובניתי לדור-ודור כסאך סלה" (For ever will I establish thy seed, and build up thy throne to all generations).
In this passage "forever" is not rendered עולם but עד-עולם, the difference is semantically meaningful; for עד means "until" but also "eternity", in the style of a Rabbinical inquiry it is possible to ask why the word "eternity" would have to be repeated unless one of the two words have a different meaning than the obvious one? And perhaps even both have a meaning different than that abscribed. Perhaps until "the world will be established" will be possible to build the throne? But wasn't the world created already? Another possible interpretation would be "in the eternity of the world", but isn't the world created out of the cosmos (חלל) and not eternal but passing as Kohelet affirms? Clarity on the second possibility will not become feasible until the last chapter of this dialogue, so for the time being we shall return to the first one. My intuition is that by saying עולם חסד יבנה the Psalm is making clear a point unheard of before: That it is not eternity but love the world itself, St. Augustine said once that "the world is the lovers of the world", from which together with the Biblical hermeneutics I would like to propose a different reading in accordance with the secular caution of Arendt's reading, I want to say that it is love the only possible form of worldliness and therefore not trascendence in the absolute sense but of the recognition of the broken forms of both trascendence and immanence, the Kafkian devise to account for past and future, no less than for the profane and the holy. This is where the Psalm approaches in giant steps the Book of Ruth, but what does Korach have to do with this story?
In verse 21 there's mention of God having found David, "מצאתי דוד עבדי בשמן קדשי משחתיו" (I have found David my servant / With my holy oil have I annointed him), "annointed" because of course the sign that he has been chosen already to bear the stamp of the Messianic times and therefore it is assured that his kingdom will never fall, what is altogether repeated in verse 36, "אחת נשבעתי בקדשי אם-לדוד אכזב" (Once I have sworn my holiness, surely I will not false unto David) and then again the promise of never letting the kingdom fall is reassured, both in terms of "world" and "eternity" as in עולם. In contrast to עד (ad) "eternity" there's also mention in the following verse of עד (ed) "witness", "כירח יכון עולם ועד בשחק נאמן סלה" (It shall be established forever as the moon; and be steadfast as the witness in the sky) which obviously refers to David's kingdom. There can be multiple other readings of this verse, "It shall be established forever and ever as the steadfast moon in the sky forever", "It shall be established in this world and beyond it as the steadfast moon in the sky" or "The world shall be established as the steadfast moon and a witness in the sky". These possible interpretations raise more questions than this humble essay could dare attempt to tackle. The interlapse between world and sky as separate entities is very meaningful in our coinage of worldnessness, for apparently the world and the earth are two different concepts, therefore this world or worldliness based on Chesed or love, is something inside the firmament, inside the universe, inside the abyss but yet not entirely a part of it, there's a kiddush, a separation. Everything up to this point has only mentioned however, promises made in the past and in verse 39 it turns to the present.
In this verse it is clear that the people have rejected the offer of God, and alas! have rejected the Messiah! for it is written "ואתה זנחת ותמאם התעברת עם-משיחך" (But Thou hast cast off and rejected, Thou hast been wroth with Thine annointed), the annointed is of course the Messiah, how has the people then been wroth with their annointed, annointed by whom? Was it a false Messiah annointed by the people or the one of God given to them already at some point? It is interesting to notice how "wroth" can mean also "pregnant". For the following seven verses God is reproaching the attitudes of the people that have caused them being led into exile, and in verse 47 there's a slight variation from a plea made in Psalms 79 and 88 (the Korahite Psalm mentioned before) "עד-מה יהוה תסתר לנצח תבער כמו-אש חמתך" (How long, O Lord, wilt Thou hide Thyself forever? How long shall Thy wrath burn like fire?) with a philological variegance of using a different word for "forever" than our common stock "olam". This is followed by five verses in which the people are facing God and confronting him so that he will "remember" them, a plea for clemency. Verses 50 and 52 return to David and the Messianic promises once again thus: "איה חסדך הראשונים / אדני נשבעת לדוד באמונתך" (Where are Thy former mercies, O Lord? Which Thou sisar swear unto David in Thy faithfulness?), hereby returning to promises made in the first part of the Psalm and also in the previous Korahite Psalms, this verse couldn't go without the company of a Messianic claim,
"אשר חרפו אויביך יהוה אשר חרפו עקבות משיחך" (Wherewith Thine enemies have tauned, O Lord, Wherewith they have tauned the footsteps of Thy anointed); from this verse we learn (as we do both in the Book of Sh'mot) that oftentimes God attached the Messiah to the people or the people to him, among other things, just like in the conversations between God and Moses regarding the People of Israel. The last verse, which is a statement of hope would be significant for our enquiry (and I believe it is, in traditional Jewish readings) but I will leave it, as it is seemly a mere closing doxology that isn't part of the Psalm but simply the usual form of ending a Book of the Psalter. The People of Israel are in Exile, they're in need of Redemption and it certainly has to do with David and therefore it is directly connected to Ruth, henceforth to what I mentioned before, my concept of love as worldliness. But we still have to pave the way through Korach, why? Let us turn to matters at hand now.
II [Parashat Korach]
III [The Scroll of Ruth]
IV [A "Machloket": Shavuot & The Schism of Love]
III [The Scroll of Ruth]
IV [A "Machloket": Shavuot & The Schism of Love]
Bibliography:
Arendt, Hannah. "Von der Menschlichkeit in finsteren Zeiten: Rede über Lessing". Piper, München, 1960.
Heller, Agnes. "Die Auferstehung des jüdischen Jesus". Philo, Berlin, 2002.
Goodman-Thau, Eveline. "Liebe und Erlösung: Das Buch Ruth". LIT, Wien, 2006.
- "Metamorphosis as Messianic Myth: Dream and Reality in the Writings of Franz Kafka", in "Kafka, Zionism and Beyond", ed. M. Gelber, Max Niemeyer Verlag, Tübingen, 2003.
- "Gott auf der Spur: Biblischer Humanismus in der Philosophie des Anderen von Emmanuel Levinas", in "Vergegenwartigung des zerstörten jüdischen Erbes", ed. W. Schmied-Kowarziek, Kassel Univ. Press, 1997.
- Kaléko, Mascha. "Aus den sechs Leben der Mascha Kaléko: Biographische Skizzen, ein Tagebuch und Briefen". ed. Gisela Zoch-Westphal, Arani Verlag, Berlin, 1987.
Rosen, Stanley. "Hermeneutics as Politics". OUP, 1987.
Susman, Margarete. "Ich Habe Viele Leben Gelebt". Dtv, 1964.
- "Das Hiob-Problem bei Kafka", in "Das Nah- und Fernsein des Fremden", ed. I. Nordmann, Jüdischer Verlag, 2002.
Zornberg, Aviva. "The Beginnings of Desire: Reflections on Genesis". Image, New York, 1996.
- "The Particulars of Rapture: Reflections on Exodus". Image, New York, 2002.
- "From Another Shore: Moshe and Korach", public lecture, Tikkun Leil Shavuot, May, 2007.
Arendt, Hannah. "Von der Menschlichkeit in finsteren Zeiten: Rede über Lessing". Piper, München, 1960.
Heller, Agnes. "Die Auferstehung des jüdischen Jesus". Philo, Berlin, 2002.
Goodman-Thau, Eveline. "Liebe und Erlösung: Das Buch Ruth". LIT, Wien, 2006.
- "Metamorphosis as Messianic Myth: Dream and Reality in the Writings of Franz Kafka", in "Kafka, Zionism and Beyond", ed. M. Gelber, Max Niemeyer Verlag, Tübingen, 2003.
- "Gott auf der Spur: Biblischer Humanismus in der Philosophie des Anderen von Emmanuel Levinas", in "Vergegenwartigung des zerstörten jüdischen Erbes", ed. W. Schmied-Kowarziek, Kassel Univ. Press, 1997.
- Kaléko, Mascha. "Aus den sechs Leben der Mascha Kaléko: Biographische Skizzen, ein Tagebuch und Briefen". ed. Gisela Zoch-Westphal, Arani Verlag, Berlin, 1987.
Rosen, Stanley. "Hermeneutics as Politics". OUP, 1987.
Susman, Margarete. "Ich Habe Viele Leben Gelebt". Dtv, 1964.
- "Das Hiob-Problem bei Kafka", in "Das Nah- und Fernsein des Fremden", ed. I. Nordmann, Jüdischer Verlag, 2002.
Zornberg, Aviva. "The Beginnings of Desire: Reflections on Genesis". Image, New York, 1996.
- "The Particulars of Rapture: Reflections on Exodus". Image, New York, 2002.
- "From Another Shore: Moshe and Korach", public lecture, Tikkun Leil Shavuot, May, 2007.
No comments:
Post a Comment