[Avodah] Altering of Rabbinic Texts?

[H Lampel via Avodah]

> Wed, 23 Nov 2016 From: "Professor L. Levine via Avodah"
>
>  From the article at
>
> http://tinyurl.com/2l2m9q
>
>
> [Breishis Rabbah 36:1] ''When he giveth quietness, who then can condemn, etc.'' (Job 34:29). R. Meir interpreted it: He quieteneth Himself from His world, And He hideth His face (ibid.) from His world, like a judge before whom a curtain is spread, so that he does not know what is happening without. ... Let that suffice thee, Meir, said they to him. [Soncino: You have said more than enough – heaven forfend that this teaching should be true!] ...
>
> MS: ... we see that R. Meir is saying (or is attributing to Job[1]) the notion that God chooses to remove himself from knowledge of and guidance of the world. This is a very radical statement  ... Louis Finkelstein ...writes: we find R. Meir ... denying Providence in individual human life.[2]
But R. Meir is merely attributing the denial of providence to Eliyhu. 
His opponents objected to that and, as Payrush Maharzu explains, the 
context of the posuk indeed argues against such an interpretation. 
Elihu's words immediately before this were, "His eyes are upon the ways 
of each man, and all his steps He will see...Therefore He will recognize 
their deeds...and the cry of the afflicted He will hear" (Iyov 
34:21-28). [3]

The Midrashim are replete with girsa variations, and whether or not 
providence-denial should be attributed to the posuk's speaker, there is 
no basis to accuse R. Meir of endorsing it. Neither is there evidence in 
the girsa variation to censorship (as Shapiro claims), rather than 
simply the presence or absence of an additional point (that the 
providence-denial was held by the generation of the Flood, too).

[1] Shapiro cites Mordechai Margaliyot’s note in his edition of Vayikra 
Rabbah, which reasons that there would only be the criticism of 
"Dayecha, Meir!" if R. Meir's interpretation was a radical one, and if 
Elihu was attributing the sentiment to Iyov. Now, the fact that Iyov's 
friends accused him of blasphemy is no news. But the attribution of this 
thought to Iyov is something no mefarshim suggest, nor does it fit the 
posuk's words or context. In fact, if it were representing Iyov's true 
thoughts, that would only further lighten the criticism of R. Meir. 
Other Tannaim and Amoraim (BB 16a) debate whether Iyov, in his pain, 
could be accused of being a mecahref umegadef  expressing heretical 
ideas (bikaish Iyov liftor kol ha-olom kulo min hadin. "Afra l'pumei 
d'Iyov."

[2] Finkelstein, perhaps trying to redeem R. Meir from total heresy, 
limited the providence-denial to that of individual human life. But the 
Midrash speaks of Hashem hiding Himself from the world, and indeed the 
posuk specifies 'over a nation and over adam together..'' So the radical 
view about Providence would not be restricted to individual human life.

[3] The language of objection is strong, but does not necessarily imply 
an accusation of heresy. R. Yehuda uses the phrase ''Dayecha, Meir!'' 
when criticizing R.Meir for darshonning a posuk in Shir HaShirim as a 
criticism of bnei Yisrael rather than a praise (Shir HaShirim Rabbah 1:57).

Zvi Lampel
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ???? ????.PDF
Type: application/pdf
Size: 220610 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20161127/ba962692/attachment-0008.pdf>