I often say there’s a cluster of especially rich sermon themes in a few Torah portions. The first two books, Bereshit an d Sh’mot, teem with stories, which makes giving a drashah, just like this one, feel like gathering from an orchard in full season. Then we reach the “desert” of Vayikra, with its painstaking sacrificial detail, trying for B’nei Mitzvah who must master what they’re reading, and for rabbis who must somehow draw water from a rock. The final books of Torah, Bamidbar and Devarim, are not quite so arid, but they don’t offer the same abundance of Bereshit and Sh’mot. They feel to me a little like the Highfeld, neither as lush as the Garden Route forests nor as stark and dry as the Karoo. And yet, as with deserts everywhere, astonishingly beautiful flowers still push through the thorns; just as blossoms can burst from cacti, I found in this week’s parashah, Ki Tavo, a single line that opens into very different pathways, so different that I want to reflect on both.
This line appears in the beginning of the parashah. When the Israelites settle in the Land, they are to bring a basket of first fruits, present it to the priest, acknowledge that they stand there because God honoured the promise made to the ancestors, and declare:
וְעָנִיתָ וְאָמַרְתָּ לִפְנֵי ה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ: אֲרַמִּי אֹבֵד אָבִי; וַיֵּרֶד מִצְרַיְמָה (…) וַיְהִי־שָׁם לְגוֹי גָּדוֹל עָצוּם וָרָב.
“You shall then declare before ה׳: Arami oved avi; my father went down to Egypt, few in number, and sojourned there; and there he became a great, mighty and numerous nation.” [1]
The narrative goes on to recall oppression, deliverance and the gift of the land, but it was that opening phrase that captured my attention.
Many of us know it from the Haggadah, as a possible answer to the question posted by the Ma Nishtanah, “why is this night different from all the others?”, “what are we celebrating tonight?”. The classic Babylonian tension between Rav and Shmuel turns in two directions: Shmuel reads the Seder as celebrating political liberation from slavery and answers Avadim hayinu, “we were slaves”, while Rav stresses spiritual liberation from idolatry and answers Arami oved avi, “my father was a wandering Aramean”. [2]
Not everyone agrees with this translation to the verse, though. Rashi’s voice enters with force for a different understanding of its meaning. Citing Sifrei, a collection of midrashim on Numbers and Deuteronomy compiled almost two thousand years ago, Rashi writes, in essence: “This recalls the lovingkindness of God: Arami oved avi means ‘an Aramean sought to destroy my father’. Lavan sought to uproot everything when he pursued Jacob, and because he planned to do so, God accounted it as though he had done it.” [3] The Maharal of Prague reads with Rashi on this; others, Rashbam (Rashi’s own grandson), Ibn Ezra and Sforno, stay with the plain sense: “My father was a wandering Aramean.” [4] Compare the two: is it “an Aramean sought to destroy my father” or is it “my father was a wandering Aramean”? The difference is not trivial. One reading cultivates a narrative of persecution and rescue; the other foregrounds migration, modest beginnings and vulnerability.
The question this debate leaves us with, however, is how we deal with passages of the Jewish tradition that contradict the way we understand ourselves and our Judaism at the end of this 5785. Last week I spoke about how to relate to difficult biblical passages. Today I return to the theme, with an eye on the siddur, and with difficulties of another sort, difficulties of language, theology and communal comfort. Rabbi Lawrence A. Hoffman, one of the foremost experts in Jewish liturgy in the Progressive world, notes how liberal communities, precisely because they pray in siddurim that include translation, encounter this dilemma more sharply than traditional ones. In his words: “Liberal worshipers faced this dilemma in ways that traditional ones did not: because their prayer books delivered prayers in translation, they suddenly discovered what they had been saying for many years but had never known it. Prayer-book editors responded with a number of strategies. They changed the Hebrew, so that the English would come out ‘decently’; they purposefully mistranslated the originals to avoid ideas that ancient authors had no trouble with but that modern worshipers found horrifying; … or they omitted the troublesome prayers altogether.” [5]
When the text says Arami oved avi, that my ancestor was spiritually lost, do I have the courage to face how much truth there is in that claim, how much I myself, not only my father, am still lost, or do I prefer to adopt a translation that softens the force of the words?
This tension is present also in passages that we sing during the service all the time, like Mi Chamocha. The Hebrew of Mi Chamocha asks: “מִי כָמֹכָה בָּאֵלִם ה׳?” — “Who is like You among the gods, O God?” [6] That phrasing does not sit easily with contemporary Jewish theology, grounded in the recognition that there is only one God. It is, in fact, the product of an ancient world in which Israel’s beliefs were expressed in ways different from our own. Our discomfort, then, is not only with what a literal translation would say, but with what the Hebrew continues to say on the very pages of our siddur, even if we decide to translate it creatively. Our Mishkan Tefilah at Bet David therefore softens the line to: “Who is like You, O God, among the gods that are worshipped?” Other siddurim go further still: “Who is like You among the powerful, O God.” To what extent do we retroject our own Jewish worldview onto ancient texts without daring to alter the Hebrew; and when we recognise that what the text says no longer reflects what we believe, do we live with the consequences of that fact?
With Rosh haShanah in just ten days, we will meet liturgy and stories that refuse to sit neatly. Some lines seem to strip us of agency, like sheep passing before their shepherd, or depict us as clay in the hands of the potter. Do we teach into those images, naming their ancient provenance and poetic intent, or do we trim them away in English while leaving the Hebrew to say what it always said?
These questions are not recent. Rashi lived in eleventh-century France. And the proverb that translators love (and dread) still applies: “Tradutore, traditore” — “translator, traitor.” Every translation reframes one culture for another; may we not betray either the original or the people who rely on our words to understand what is being said.
There is another thread to pull in Arami oved avi, and it is bound up with gratitude in a way that many Jewish immigrants who have flourished in this remarkable country can recognise. Rashbam affirms that by identifying the wandering Aramean as my father, not a distant ancestor, but my father, from whom I directly descend, the declaration acquires personal force each year it is repeated. As we carry the fruit of our labour in the basket of first fruits to be offered, we acknowledge that our success is not our merit alone: it is God who turns seeds into fruit; it is God who frees captives. In Rashbam’s reading, it is as if each person were saying: “My parents came from a strange land, in which they were slaves, to this good and prosperous land. Now, as a sign of gratitude, I bring these first fruits of the land to the Temple, because I recognise that this abundance is not my achievement alone; I enjoy it through the love of God.” [4] What a contrast with the “self-made” mentality, for whom every success is credited solely to personal talent and effort, and who refuses to acknowledge the contribution of any other factor.
As Elul draws to its close, may we reckon honestly with where we have come from and who and what has enabled us to arrive here. May we look with courage at our tradition and at ourselves, honouring what deserves honour and transforming what must be changed. And may we, as translators of scripture, prayer and life, be faithful both to the text and to the people for whom we render it.
[1] Deuteronomy 26:5.
[2] Babylonian Talmud, Pesachim 116a.
[3] Rashi on Deuteronomy 26:5.
[4] Rashbam, Ibn Ezra and Sforno on Deuteronomy 26:5, and Maharal of Prague in Gevurot Hashem.
[2] Hoffman, Lawrence A. “Prayers of Awe, Intuitions of Wonder”, Who by Fire, Who by Water: Un’taneh Tokef. Lawrence A. Hoffman (ed.), Woodstock, Vt: Jewish Lights Pub, 2010. pp. 4-12.
[6] Exodus 15:11.
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário