[Avodah] Iyov

[Micha Berger]

On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 01:41:37PM +0300, Eli Turkel wrote:
: limit the machloket in the gemara while I am more disturbed by claims that
: people lived extraordinarily long lives (over 1000 years) . While others
: take the gemara literally that Pinchas was Eliyahu I prefer
: the interpretations that the gemara is pointing out similarities between
: the two...

I think the difference between us is more than I'm keeping two different
layers separate. When the gemara says that Pinchas was Eliyahu, we
don't take this to mean the gemara didn't really say that. Rather,
we explain it as a metaphoric statement emphasizing their similarity.

There is also a difference in that you insist such stories must be
metaphoric, whereas I try to remain agnostic. LAD, the question of
historicity is tangetial to talmud Torah. But that really doesn't
separate our positions here.

Here I believe there are two strong reasons to believe the gemara is
talking about long age:

1- The gemara itself says it's talking about long lives, comparing
Iyov's lifespan to a tree.

2- On the previous amud Iyov is attributed to Moshe. Here, there is a
linkage made between that and Iyov being alive in Moshe's day. There is
nothing in the gemara explicating that anyone disagrees with the stam
gemara, so why not read the gemara so that *everyone* has Iyov alive
in Moshe's day?

Therefore, I would not take the claims of Iyov's tree-like age as anything
but claims of Iyov's long age. If that means the gemara may be metaphoric,
then AFTER we get peshat we can explore what the metaphor is. That's
what I mean by keeping the layers separate. The gemara says Pinechas is
Eliyahu; THEN you can peel away the historical or mythical claim to get
to what Torah they're trying to relay. The gemara says Iyov lived a
long time; THEN you can peel away the historical or mythical claim to
get to what Torah they're trying to relay.

And for that matter, I would say that's true whether Eliyahu really was
Pinechas or not and whether Iyov really existed and lived a millennium
or more or not. Or whether the historical/mythical claim is a common
occurance or abnormally miraculous. I think worrying about historicity
is a modern problem. Chazal only repeated naarative about the past for
their messages. If it happened to also be historical, that's tangential
and pretty irrelevent.

Including ascribing authorship of Iyov to Moshe Rabbeinu. It too is an
aggadita and thus is a message relayed via a story that may or may not
be historical. We don't care too much as a historical point who wrote
Iyov. Rather, Chazal are making a statement about how seriously to take
the implications of the book -- it is something worthy of Moshe.

-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Zion will be redeemed through justice,
micha at aishdas.org        and her returnees, through righteousness.
http://www.aishdas.org
Fax: (270) 514-1507