[Avodah] ra-ah - da-ah (from areivim)

[saul mashbaum]

RZS responded to my homiletic explanation of the phrase "omedet b"Bavel v'roah 
n'veila B"eretz Yisrael" as describing people who live in chu"l and see only bad in EY. 

>>
The problem with this homiletics game is that it is just a game; the
darshan is really giving his own view, not the gemara's, so nobody is
obliged to accept it.  But some people are left with the impression
that this is the gemara's or the medrash's view, and cite it (as was
done on Areivim) as if it had some authority.

>>

When I wrote that homiletically, the phrase means such and such, I of course was giving my own homiletic explanation, which indeed others have developed as well. I myself did not imply, or mean to imply, that chazal gave this homiletic explanation.

To newcomers in learning, whether children or BT, everything written in Hebrew in a book is perfectly authoritative. As sophistication progresses, one becomes more aware of who says what, and the relative  authoritativeness of various sources is discerned. Participants in this forum are presumably aware that a drasha of Saul Mashbaum, even one which liberally cites maamarei chazal, is just that: a drasha of Saul Mashbaum. In no way are the drashot of the Chatam Sofer binding and authoritative as are the Tshuvot of same, nor are they intended to be.

Drush is intended to inspire, not to prescribe. Indeed, often people will cite the drashot of a gadol as "proof" of some hashkafic point, particularly if it quotes maamarei chazal. All this does prove is that the gadol in question holds that way, not that chazal intended the gadol's conclusion in the quoted statements. 

Having said all this, essentially agreeing with RZS, I am uncomfortable with the phrase "The problem with this homiletics game is that it is just a game". I hope that RZS did not mean to be so derogatory and dismissive of homiletics as this phrase makes it seem. I do not think that homiletics is just a game, or that those who engage in it are merely playing games, occupying themselves with a trivial activity. Drush is the the "literature" of Jewish religious literary activity, and like literature often contains profound insights into the human condition, society, and our relation to Hashem, Torah and mitzvot. However, for all its value, it does not "prove" these insights but rather presents them , just as a play does not "prove" the points it is trying to make.

In Biblical commentary, exegesis and holmiletics move in opposite directions. Exegesis  starts with the text, analysing it and reaching some conclusion which resolves difficulties in the text. Homiletics often starts with the conclusion, and works back to the text, interpreting it in light of the desired conclusion. It's vastly different from exegesis or halacha, but it's not a game.

Saul Mashbaum