R. Zadok and the Principle of Omnisignificance
MODERN RABBINIC
THOUGHT
By Rav
Lecture #24: R. Zadok
and the Principle of Omnisignificance
Biography
R. Zadok Ha-Kohen
Rabinowitz (1823-1900) was born into a mitnagdic rabbinic family. Popular biographies recount that he was
a remarkable illuy, a child prodigy. A few years after his teenage marriage,
rumors about his wifes problematic behavior reached his ears. Given the historical source material
available, it is difficult to evaluate the precise nature or veracity of these
rumors. In any case, R. Zadok
wanted to divorce her and she refused.
He travelled around
When the Izbitzer
passed away, his court divided into followers of his son, the Beis
Yaakov, and followers of his talmid
Works
For much of his life,
R. Zadok had time to write and he did so prolifically. Since he wrote many works and the titles
do not always clarify the content of these volumes, I will quickly survey his
vast literary output. R. Zadok
wrote on both halakha and machshava topics. His legal writings include Tiferet
Tzvi, responsa on Yoreh Dea; Levushei Tzedaka, a defense of
the Levush from the attacks of later authorities; Otzar Ha-melekh, a
commentary predominantly on the first book of Rambams Mishneh Torah with an
appended essay on tumat ohel; and Meishiv Tzeddek, a defense of
the practice to eat a meal inside the house on Shemini Atzeret.
Some of his writings
on Jewish thought are defined easily, others less so. Takanat Ha-shavin addresses
repentance, Yisrael Kedoshim focuses on the unique status of the Jewish
people, and Sichat Malakhei Ha-sharet discusses rabbinic
literature regarding angels. Others
are more of a potpourri but some essential themes stand out. Both Resisei Layla and
Machshavot Charutz emphasize the holidays with the former devoting
considerable space to Purim.
Divrei Soferim and Tzidkat Ha-tzaddik contain insightful
readings of Talmudic passages with the beginning of the latter dedicated to the
first few pages of Berakhot.
In addition to the
two major categories, a few other individual works stand out. His Divrei Chalomot outlines
novel insights that came to him while dreaming. A letter entitled Iggeret
Ha-kodesh encourages a childhood friend now living in
This massive output
illustrates R Zadoks remarkable range.
He was a master of Jewish law and of Jewish thought, knowledgeable
regarding both Jewish mysticism and Jewish philosophy. As we shall see in subsequent shiurim,
issues of history also intrigued him.
Scholarly
Analysis
Though scholars have
only scratched the surface of R. Zadoks creative thought, they have produced
some important studies. In
particular, I recommend Prof.
Omnisignificance
This term helps set
the stage for appreciating one important aspect of R. Zadoks thought. Prof. James Kugel coined the term in his
analysis of biblical poetry and
The basic assumption
underlying all rabbinic exegesis is that the slightest details of the biblical
text have a meaning that is both comprehensible and significant. Nothing in the Bible, in other words,
ought to be explained as the product of chance, or, for that matter, as an
emphatic or rhetorical form
Every detail is put there to teach us something new
and important.[5]
Kugel mentions this
idea in explaining the rabbinic approach to biblical parallelism, the essential
form of Tanakhs poetry.
Chazal refuse to say that the parallel repeats the same idea with
different wording, insisting instead on finding a fresh idea in the second
phrase. They apply the same
methodological assumptions to textual issues such as juxtapositions, extraneous
wording, and superfluous letters.
This perspective eschews technical or aesthetic explanations for these
phenomena in the search for maximum religious meaning.
For the techniques
that Chazal employ in their interpretation of Chumash , and, by
extension, Nakh, came to be used, mutatis mutandis, for any
hallowed text tannaitic texts and amoraic texts, in turn Rishonim and
Aharonim.[6]
Thus, the gemara
assumes that each extraneous word in a mishna teaches something new. Substantive interpretations take
precedence over literary or technical explanations for the same phenomena. As Elman points out, this assumption
works more easily for a Divine text, whose author could include infinite levels
of meaning, than for human texts.
He develops the idea expressed in chassidic writers that a text written
by a rabbinic luminary, and accepted by klal yisrael, was written under
the Divine influence (ruach ha-kodesh). In this context, Elman cites R. Zadok
and we shall see examples of this method in the kohens work.
Placement of
Aggadot
The location of both
aggadic and halakhic Talmudic statements often seems based on purely technical
considerations. For example, the
Talmud will cite a given statement because it was said by the same individual as
a previous statement, it may use a similar word or structure to one just
mentioned, or will often follow up on a concept mentioned tangentially in the
previous discussion. R. Zadok
comments on examples where we could easily employ the above methods and insists
that something deeper motivates the placement. Even more striking, he resolutely seeks
a significant reason for placement regarding both chapter and
tractate.
R. Zadok offers a
programmatic statement of his working assumptions.
I received a
tradition that even though according to peshat (the simple
interpretation), Talmudic statements appear tangentially, al ha-emet (in
truth), they are completely connected to the place where they appear and these
places are the most appropriate.[7]
Apparently, R. Zadok
accepts the more technical explanations on a peshat level but calls for
deeper levels of explanation that move beyond the simple understanding.
His approach inspires
a powerful idea regarding the aggada about the destruction of the
R. Zadok also
explains both the chapter and the tractate when discussing the aggadic passages
regarding matan Torah (the giving of the Torah at Sinai). The obvious rationale for its appearance
is a mishna (Shabbat 86a) that mentions a waiting period of three days
after relations to insure that a woman no longer emits seminal fluid. The three days of marital separation
prior to matan Torah provide a biblical source for this mishna. On a peshat level, this fact
alone justifies an aggadic elaboration of matan torah. Moving beyond the peshat, R.
Zadok explains that this aggada appears in massekhet Shabbat because
matan Torah took place on Shabbat. Furthermore, it appears in a chapter
entitled Rabbi Akiva because Rabbi Akiva exemplifies the Oral Law; thus, it
emphasizes that an oral law accompanied the written text at Sinai.[10]
Here, one might claim
that R. Zadoks explanation of the chosen tractate fails to provide greater
religious meaning. After all, the
date of matan Torah might be viewed as a happenstance of the
calendar. I submit that for R.
Zadok, the fact that matan Torah took place on Shabbat was no mere
coincidence. Rather, it reflects
some significant connection between the Sabbath and the receiving of the
Torah. If so, R. Zadok remains true
to his commitment to offer explanations with spiritual import.
In another example,
the name of the chapter and tractate coincide. The aggadot about manna appear in
massekhet Yoma (75a), perek Yom Ha-kippurim. R. Zadok explains that manna was a
spiritual sustenance that turned corporeal when it entered our world. It parallels two approaches to eating
over the course of Yom Kippur. On
the fast day itself, we are fully spiritual and abstain from eating. On erev Yom Kippur, we eat to fulfill a
commandment and redeem the physical act of eating. The manna is thematically linked with
Yom Kippur.[11]
Sometimes, R. Zadok
explains not just the chosen tractate and perek but also the specific
mishna which leads to the aggada.
R. Pinchas ben Yairs famous list of levels of spiritual achievement
beginning with Torah and concluding with ruach ha-kodesh and techiyat
ha-metim appears in Avoda Zara (20b) following a mishna about not
selling land in
As Sara Friedland
points out, finding meaning in the chapter names reflects a radical extension of
this methodology. Tractates have
essential themes and we can imagine Talmudic redactors placing an aggada to
cohere with that theme. Similarly,
they might choose to associate a story with a particular mishna. However, Talmudic chapter names reveal
nothing about content as they simply consist of the first words of the
chapter. Presumably, we use them
merely for referencing purposes.
Yet R. Zadok asserts that something deeper connects aggadot with
the chapter names of their Talmudic location.[13]
We might say that R.
Zadok here moves far away from peshat into the realm of derash.
At the same time, we need not
assume that R. Zadok only engages in derash whose justification depends
on assigning ruach ha-kodesh to generations of rabbinic writers. The omnisignificance principle, in
certain circumstances, leads to a better understanding of peshat. As Kugel points out, it was precisely
In a similar way, the
compilers of the mishna and gemara may well have had spiritually significant
ideas in mind when they structured the Talmud. Indeed, a myriad of possible technical
and associative connections exist in the Talmudic corpus to introduce a given
story and it seems logical to assume that the redactors sometimes relied upon
spiritually substantive criteria to influence their choice of placement. Some of R. Zadoks explanations are
clearly derash; others could very well be peshat.
Some contemporary
academics also argue that placement of aggadot reflects more than a
technical connection. Jeffery
Rubensteins recent book provides a number of fine examples. The aggada about
Rubenstein employs a
similar approach to other aggadot.
He shares R. Zadoks assumption that a mere word connection between
sikrikun and Abba Sikra does not sufficiently explain the placement of
stories about the
In sum, R. Zadoks
search for meaning reflects either a type of derash based on assumptions
of Divine inspiration or a peshat-based outlook that sees technical
explanations as inadequate grounds for placement. According to the latter version, we end
up with an unusual overlap between the approaches of R. Zadok and some
contemporary academics.
[1]
[2] Meat le-Tzaddik: Kovetz Maamarim al R. Zadok
Ha-Kohen me-Lublin u-Mishnato ed.
[3]
[4] A Rambi search reveals five articles written by Dr.
[5] James L. Kugel, The Idea of Biblical Poetry (Yale University Press: New Haven, 1981), p. 104.
[6]
[7] Peri Tzaddik Bereishit (
[8] The mishna appears on 55b and Abba Sikra appears on 56a.
[9] Peri Tzaddik on Bereishit, p. 12. See also Dover Tzedek (Bnei Brak, 5727), p. 195.
[10] Peri Tzaddik on Devarim, p. 212.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Yisrael Kedoshim (Bnei Brak, 5727), p. 47. Though R. Zadok can write quite negatively about the non-Jewish world, he did not think Gentiles incapable of spiritual accomplishments. See Ohr Zarua la-Tzaddik, pp. 7, 16; Yisrael Kedoshim, p. 55 and Machshavot Charutz, p. 141.
[13] See her Shekhenut ve-Korat Gag: Al Shenei Ekronot Darshanut Tzuraniyim be-Khitvei R. Zadok Ha-Kohen me-Lublin, Akdamot 8 (Kislev 5760), pp. 25- 42. This article was reprinted in Meat le-Tzaddik. Some of Friedlands article overlaps with our analysis and she has other interesting examples not mentioned here.
[14] Kugel, op. Cit., pp. 288-292.
[15] Jeffrey L. Rubenstein, Talmudic Stories: Narrative Art, Composition and Culture (Johns Hopkins University Press: Baltimore, 1999), pp. 135-136.
[16] Ibid. pp. 162-165. See also p. 237 where he suggests an explanation for the location of the aggada at the beginning of Avoda Zara.
This website is constantly being improved. We would appreciate hearing from you. Questions and comments on the classes are welcome, as is help in tagging, categorizing, and creating brief summaries of the classes. Thank you for being part of the Torat Har Etzion community!