Musings on Shir Hashirim

This stirring love story is believed to have been composed by King Solomon (who also authored Proverbs and Ecclesiastes) as indicated in the opening passage, “The Song of Songs which is Solomon’s”.


Following is a summary of the narrative by Rabbi Dr. S.M. Lehrman (Soncino Press, 1952)

“The story describes the trials of a beautiful peasant maiden from Shunem, or Shulem, who was employed by her mother and brothers as a shepherdess to their flock of goats. She had fallen in love with a shepherd of the same village, but the brothers did not look with approval on the union. They, accordingly, trans¬ferred her services from the pasture to the vineyards, in the hope that there her meetings with her lover would not be possible. One day, as she was tending the vines, she was seen by the servants of King Solomon, when he chanced to pass the village on his way to his summer resort in Lebanon. Impressed by her beauty, they try to persuade her to accompany them. She refuses and is finally led away as a captive to the king's chambers. No sooner does the king behold her, when he, too, falls violently in love with her. He sings her beauty and uses all his endeavors to induce her to abandon her shepherd for the love and wealth he can shower upon her. The ladies of the court also join in trying to dislodge her love for her humble swain. Her heart, however, belongs to him and she remains steadfast.

During her stay in the palace, she yearns for her lover and is tantalized by the taunts of the ladies of the court that he has rejected her. In her agitated state of mind she speaks to him as if he was in her presence, and even dreams that he has come to rescue her and escort her back to her mother's home. Awaking from her dream, she rushes out of her chamber to seek him in the streets where she is roughly treated by the watchmen of the city, who misjudge her character. When the king is finally convinced of the constancy of her love for the shep¬herd, he dismisses her from his presence and allows her to return home. She is now joined by her lover and, leaning on his arm, approaches Shunem where a warm welcome awaits her. They come upon the scenes so dear to them, and she recounts the vicissitudes through which she had lately passed. The story ends on a triumphant note. Not only could her love not be extinguished by the temptations offered by the king, but she also assures her brothers that their solici¬tude for her virtue was unwarranted. She has proved that love is capable of heroic endurance. The tale she tells to their assembled friends makes a strong protest against the luxury and vice of the court, and pays testimony to the beauty and dignity of pure love and fidelity.”

The sages of the Talmud debated whether or not to include this Megilla in Scripture, presumably because of the uncertainty over whether the words were to be taken literally as the expression of love between a man and woman or whether this Book is allegorical, depicting the spiritual “marriage” between Israel and G-d starting with the Revelation at Mt. Sinai. Even if the former, matters relating to the marital relationship are steeped in holiness. Indeed, one of the seven blessings at a wedding concludes with the hope that G-d will “cause Zion to rejoice with her children”, thereby linking the religious ideas of redemption and Return to Zion with the earthly wedding ceremony. Rabbi Akiva ruled that all the Songs in the Torah are holy and Shir Hashirim is holy of holies.

Midrash, Targum and early medieval commentators understood the story allegorically. Even the rationalist Rambam gave homiletic meaning to many of its verses.

Rabbi Amos Chacham,in the Daat Mikrah commentary, is of the opinion that Shir Hashirim may be an organized collection of independent love stories (or poems recited at weddings) describing pure, unadulterated love and recording different situations experienced by the couple. An unnamed shepherd (referred to as “dod”) who wanders though the mountains of Israel is in love with an unnamed beautiful young woman (tall, dark complexion, and dark hair) referred to as “raaya” who appears to be from a wealthy family (pampering herself with many expensive perfumes) and whose brothers demand that she tend the family vineyards. There is no mention of G-d or religion. It is a Book that possesses a unity “of ardent love, abundance of imagery, vivacity of movement pleading tones and warm passions.” (Rabbi Lehrman)

The moral of the Megilla is that Love, one of Man’s strongest emotions, can also be its holiest. The moral is that Loving G-d has watched over His people Israel; and that over time Israel has maintained its loyalty to and faith in Him. Rabbi Chacham speculates that the reason that there is no mention of G-d is because of concern that this holy poetry might find itself in an “unholy”, profane environment (i.e., overindulgence at a wedding where the poems would be recited).


Rabbi H. L. Berenholz

Musings on Parshat Va’eira

Following are some of the ideas, insights and interpretations that emerge from our weekly Chumash learning group at the Young Israel of Oceanside, Long Island. We cite sources when possible. Some of our interpretations derive from ideas we may have seen elsewhere, possibly without attribution. Or we may simply have forgotten the source. For this we apologize. We invite your comments, observations and participation.

Overview

Continuing dialogue between G-d and Moshe…Moshe and his brother Aharon are appointed as redeemers…genealogy of Moshe and Aharon… G-d predicts that Pharaoh will refuse Moshe’s demands to send the children of Israel out of Egypt to worship Him in the desert…Moshe and Aharon are 80 and 83 years old, respectively, when they approach Pharaoh…Aharon turns a staff into a snake for Pharaoh, who remains unimpressed…The first seven plagues (each lasting a week?): the Nile turns into blood; infestation of frogs; infestation of vermin; infestation of insects/beetles (or wild animals, according to some); a cattle-killing disease epidemic; skin boils; hail that kills humans and animals.

Structure of the Ten Plagues

Each plague increases in intensity, starting with the inconvenience and nuisance of the smelly dead fish when the Nile turned to blood; ratcheting up to bodily discomfort and attacks on person and property; and culminating in the most horrible discomfort of the final two plagues : terror of darkness (solitary confinement) and then death of the firstborn.

Rabbi Günter Plaut notes that the ten plagues can be divided into five groups of two. The first two deal with the Nile (blood and frogs); then vermin and insects followed by pestilence and boils (each similar to one another and aimed at attacks on person); hail and locust (both directed at crops); and then the grouping of darkness and death.

More familiar to us is the tripartite division in the Midrash Sifray on Sefer Devarim that is cited in the Haggadah: “Rabbi Yehudah would list the initials of the plague in acrostic abbreviation: Detasch (Dam; TZvardaia, Kinim); Adash (Arov; Dever; SHechin); and Be’achav (Barad, Arbe, Chosech, macas Bicoros).” But, as Rabbi B.S. Jacobson notes, the tenth plague is in a class by itself; it is the climactic event that lead to Israel’s liberation. The punishment of the firstborn is the Meda C’neged Meda payback for the cruel treatment of the Israelites, God’s “firstborn”, as Moshe announced at his first audience with Pharaoh before any plague is mentioned: “Israel is my son; my firstborn…let my son go so that he may serve me…I will slay thy son, thy firstborn”.

The plagues have a framework. Moshe announces plagues number one, four and seven (the first of each grouping) to Pharaoh in the morning on the banks of the Nile River. (Pharaoh exalted himself as master of the Nile Deity. Some suggest he was there to inspect the Nile River to determine its level and the quality of the water, since the Nile was so critical to Egypt’s agricultural economy.)The first two plagues in each unit came with a warning, whereas the third one took effect without warning.


The Purpose of the Plagues

As the confrontation between God and Pharaoh begins in earnest there is the need for a series of devastating events to punish the Egyptian pantheon; to demonstrate God’s infinite power and constant presence; and to teach the Israelites.

Although there appears to be no explicit mention of this execution of judgment, A.S. Yahudah (cited by Rabbi Jacobson) provides archaeological evidence to support the thesis that the plagues were in fact a “provocative punishment of the Egyptian pantheon”. (Abraham Shalom Yahuda (1877-1951) was a Biblical scholar who studied the language of the Torah and its relation to Egyptian society.)

The Nile was the foundation of the Egyptian economy (in that the agricultural society was dependent upon irrigation from the Nile) and, as such, was venerated as a major deity. Moreover, Pharaoh viewed himself as a deity (“the son of god, his own bones and flesh”).Turning the Nile into blood not only crippled the economy, but also demonstrated the failure of the Egyptian deity in the presence of Hashem, the Creator and Master of the entire universe.

The fertility goddess to protect midwives (whose image is of a woman with a frog head) is the object of the second plague. Pharaoh had ordered the midwives to kill Hebrew male babies. The frog/Egyptian deity that was a symbol of fertility and blessing turns into a widespread, dreadful affliction emerging from the Nile. Also, in Egyptian mythology frogs were considered to have life-giving powers. Now G-d has turned them loose to become a destructive force.

Unlike during the first two plagues, Pharaoh’s magicians were unable to reproduce plague number three, vermin, exclaiming to Pharaoh that “This is the finger of G-d”. This idiomatic expression connotes total helplessness in the face of an invisible dreaded enemy and is derived from a myth in which a particular Egyptian deity thwarted the plans of an enemy by dressing up as a hog, sneaking up on the enemy and scratching out one of his eyes with his finger without the victim realizing what happened. Vermin were prevalent in Egypt but Priests shaved their entire bodies to protect against contamination. Now, however, all precautions failed and these religious leaders were reduced to the same status as commoners. With the Egyptian deities unable to protect them, they suffered through the subsequent plagues like everyone else.

In addition to punishing Pharaoh and his people for their cruelty to the Israelites, the plagues fulfilled the Divine promise that “…against all of the gods of Egypt I will execute judgments.”

Abrabanel opines that the plagues served to undermine the fundamental religious beliefs of the Egyptians. The first group of plagues was designed to establish G-d as the Prime Cause and Creator of the Universe. The second set was to demonstrate His involvement in worldly events and His role as Protector of Israel. The third set was to show His Omnipotence and the inability of any force to succeed against Him.


Did Pharaoh have free choice to act?

When G-d selects Moshe and Aharon to demand of Pharaoh that he free the Israelites, He tells them “I will harden (akshe) Pharaoh’s heart, that I may multiply My signs and marvels in the land of Egypt”. I think that this may be the Torah’s way of predicting for us that at some point in the future, after his multiple refusals to free the Israelites despite the enormous pain that will have been inflicted on him, Pharaoh’s harshness will have been so deeply ingrained and so dramatically influenced his persona that he will be emotionally unable to change his behavior. This real life personality dynamic is euphemistically communicated by the phrase “I (G-d) will harden his heart” because personality changes derive from G-d and how He created our psychological makeup.

After each of the first five plagues, Pharaoh elects to remain resolute in his refusal to free the Israelites. It is only after plague six that “G-d hardened Pharaoh’s heart.” We are taught that S’char avera, avera”(“the reward for a transgression is another transgression”).This means to me that as one behaves improperly, a momentum of negativity builds within to a point where one no longer has the ability to change for the better (i.e., the choice of how to act no longer exists). This was Pharaoh’s situation.

The lesson for us is to focus on our behavior since ours is a religion of deed, not creed. “S’char mitzvah, mitzvah” (“the reward for a mitzvah is another mitzvah”) means to me that as one behaves properly, a momentum of goodness builds within to a point where one no longer has the ability to act inappropriately (i.e., the choice of how to act no longer exists). It is up to each of us to determine our behavior.

Rabbi H. L. Berenholz