Parashat Vaetchanan (5761)

With God's help, on the eve of the holy Sabbath, Parashat Vaetchanan, 5761

The Power and Meaning of Myth

In this portion, Moses our Teacher once again describes the giving of the Torah and the Ten Commandments. Before this description

he introduces an important preface: 'Only take heed to yourself and guard your soul diligently, lest you forget the things that

your eyes saw, and lest they depart from your heart all the days of your life' (Deuteronomy 4:9), and he adds that these words apply also to

future generations: 'and make them known to your children and your children's children' (ibid.). We should note that Moses our Teacher is not speaking

here about forgetting the Torah, although the Sages expound these verses as a prohibition against forgetting anything

of one's learning. The plain meaning of the verses is a prohibition against forgetting the historical facts, and an obligation to transmit them

as they occurred to future generations. The question is why the Torah attributes such great importance to historical

reality. And to sharpen the question: is there significance to the Torah's descriptions of reality, beyond

the observance of the commandments with which we were charged and the values that emerge from it?

This issue arose for discussion at a later period. In the responsa of Rashba there appears a writ of excommunication that

Rashba sent to Yedaya ha-Penini and his circle, who engaged in philosophy and concluded that their attitude toward the Torah's

descriptions should be allegorical (=the Torah's narratives are parables). For example, they claimed that Abraham and Sarah

are matter and form, and not people who actually lived. That is, the Torah's events and personages were understood by them

as symbols for ideas and ideals, and not as living people and events that truly occurred. It should be noted

that Philo of Alexandria preceded them in this.

In fact, what we have here is a precursor of the contemporary approach to myths. Today it is commonly accepted that there is no

connection between the meaning and importance of any myth and its historical truth. There are

people who observe the commandments, yet they do not believe in the historical events described

in the Torah in their plain sense, and they assign them allegorical purposes.

Rashba sent a writ of excommunication to these people. His intention was to teach us that this is not the

correct way to relate to the history described in Scripture. When we are commanded to remember the events and to transmit

them to our children, this means that they truly occurred, and that we are obligated to relate to them accordingly. The question

of course is why one cannot relate to biblical history in the manner of Yedaya ha-Penini,

who apparently observed the commandments meticulously, but simply did not believe in the historical basis of part of Scripture?

It seems to me that this discussion has returned in our time, with even greater force. Every culture has its myths,

the Zionist movement in particular. When those who call themselves 'the New Historians'

come and shatter the historical basis of Zionist myths—for example, when they say that Trumpeldor

did not say, 'It is good to die for our country,' but merely cursed in Russian—everyone is outraged. Here too

the question is why be outraged at them? The value-laden ideological dispute is not necessarily connected to the

historical question. One may believe in the value of sacrifice for the homeland even if Trumpeldor had never

existed?

The problem becomes doubly acute if we note that this difficulty can be directed at the other side

as well. Usually these disputes are not purely academic. Such

'New Historians' have an ideological goal. Usually they are connected to what is called post-Zionism, that is,

their aim is an ideological assault on Zionism, and in fact its negation on the plane of values. If so,

here too one may ask: if someone truly wishes to challenge the validity and importance of the value of sacrificing

one's life for the homeland, or Zionism itself, why must he base himself on denying the

accepted ('old') historical account? Can he not simply argue and say that it does not seem to him important

to die for the homeland, or that it was not proper to establish a national home for the Jewish people, even if he accepts the

historical truth of the Trumpeldor myth? One can suggest tactical explanations for this behavior,

but that is not the real issue (I could demonstrate this, but the space here is too limited).

The surprising conclusion is that both sides accept the 'naive,' ostensibly primitive,

connection between the importance and meaning of a myth and its historical truth. The reason is that a myth

is not merely an edifying story. A significant myth describes a reality that existed in the past and affects

reality in practice.

I will offer an example to illustrate the point. It is told of that mother (whom, for some reason, people call Hannah) and her seven

sons, all of whom were killed for the sanctification of God's name under Greek rule. In the end that mother climbed onto the roof,

and before she cast herself down, she sent a sharp message to Abraham our Patriarch: Do not be so proud, for I

bound seven sons for sacrifice, whereas you only one. You were only a test, and I was the actual deed. The question is a piercing one: why

do we, in fact, relate specifically to Abraham as the symbol of self-sacrifice for the sanctification of God's name? Throughout

history there were many who seemingly did more than he did. The answer is that Abraham brought down the power

of self-sacrifice into the world. After Abraham, the matter became easier. This does not mean psychological ease

(that Abraham's myth taught us self-sacrifice); the meaning is that Abraham actually influences us

in practice. This is an influence within reality, and not merely an edifying story. According to this conception, even one who does not

know the story of the Binding of Isaac is affected by it, by virtue of its very occurrence.

It is clear that an effect in reality cannot be produced by parabolic tales that never

happened at all. Such tales cannot affect anything in reality; at most they can educate.

The conception that a myth 'acts' and does not merely educate is what underlies Rashba's approach, and perhaps

also the verses cited from our portion.

Have a peaceful Sabbath

It may be placed for respectful disposal in any synagogue or yeshiva. Comments and responses are welcome.

Biton99.doc