DANGER IN THE ORCHARD

“Pardes” is a Hebrew word for orchard and is sometimes used in connection with the Garden of Eden and/or paradise. Pardes is also an acronym for four classic modes of interpretation of Torah. The first of these is “p'shat”, meaning “simple”. What do the words on the page mean? For example, sometimes “elohim” means “gods”, as in the gods that are worshipped by others. Other times it means capital-G God. Interpretation of a verse of Torah would change dramatically depending on an answer to this question about simple meaning. The second term is “remez” (hint). This is something that can be drawn directly from the text but you have to look a bit harder. So, for example, the Vilna Gaon (18th cent) looked hard at the first word of the Torah and found a hint about a later commandment. “Bereshit” is the first word. He decided that it could be read as an acronym “ben rishon acharei shloshim yom tifdeh” meaning “you shall redeem you firstborn son after 30 days”, a later commandment. (Yes, I agree, I didn't see that hint either.)

The third term, “drash” (explanation) refers to all those accounts that go beyond what is on the page to fill in missing details or to give a theory about the moral or philosophical point that is being made by the text. As an example, we read in Genesis; Jacob is fleeing from his brother Esau. It is night. He lies down to sleep in the open and has a dream of a ladder going up to heaven with angels “ascending and descending”. What are those angels doing? Torah doesn't say. It's time for a drash. The Rabbis notice that “ascending” comes before “descending”. That must mean that some angels were down on earth to begin with. Who were they? They must have been the angels guarding Jacob. Why are they ascending? Perhaps angels have territories and, as Jacob prepares to leave home, the angels tied to the land of Israel go up to heaven to be replaced by some foreign travel specialists. You certainly won't find any of that in the plain text of the Torah. It is imaginative rabbinic drash.

The final level is “sod”, meaning “secret”. This is the realm of mystical and esoteric interpretation. Every word in every Torah scroll has been written exactly the same way for two millennia. Surely, there must be meaning in the arrangement of white spaces or in numerical values of the letters ("gematria"). Devotees of the sod level of interpretation find hidden meanings everywhere. But I will stop talking about this because you aren’t supposed to attempt this sort of interpretation until you are at least 40 and children might be reading this (though I sincerely doubt it). Sod is dangerous, said the Rabbis. In one famous Talmudic tale, four rabbis “entered the orchard (pardes)”. One died. One went mad. One became an apostate. Only Rabbi Akiva returned safely.

I want to point to a danger, not in mystical speculation, but in plain drash. Drash is the art of filling in the empty spaces left by imperfect information. Often that leads to wonderful speculation. Sometimes it is less attractive. For instance, there is a strain of rabbinic story telling that picks sides and spins endless tales showing the perfection of the good guys like Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob while writing calumnies about the designated bad guys like Ishmael and Esau. Poor old Esau; He is a simple guy who gets tricked out of birthright and blessing by Jacob. Torah doesn't say much about him but there are a lot of midrash out there painting Esau in the blackest of terms, not because the text says anything bad about him but because the text is spare enough to leave space for such embellishments.

Even when we are not interpreting Torah, this temptation of the drash can reach out to us. We are very good creating theories and stories based on a very sparse scaffolding of fact. This happens in all aspects of our life.  A question like "Why did she say that to me?" or, better, "Why didn't he say that to me?" screams out for a drash and we supply it. I have seen this repeatedly in my work at Temple. When the facts are thin, drash steps in. The problems arise when we forget that the account is drash and not Torah. I am sure that you can recall instances when the explanation offered for some sketchy facts has more to do with the conspiratorial assumptions of the explainer than with anything to be found in the facts, themselves. Nothing wrong with drash but, like any tool, we need to use it carefully.

And a bit of good news

I am happy to report that the Board of Trustees has approved a new, five-year contract for Rabbi Vogel. I am grateful to Harry Shulman, who negotiated the contract on behalf of the Temple and to Harvey Cotton and Ted Folkman for their extensive advice. Most of all, I am pleased with this evidence of a commitment to a continued relationship between this rabbi and this congregation. The contract will be formally approved at the annual meeting in June. Hope to see you there. As ever, if you have questions or comments about this or anything else that the president of the congregation should know, drop me a