In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

15 1 Associative Midrash: Reflections on a Hermeneutical Theory in Likkutei MoHaRan Shaul Magid “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” “The question is” asked Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master— that’s all.” —Lewis Carrol, Alice in Wonderland Rabbi Nahman ben Simha of Bratslav (1772–1810) remains one of the most celebrated and controversial masters in the history of Hasidism.1 His collected homilies, published as Likkutei MoHaRan (1805) and Likkutei MoHaRan Tinyana (1811) continue to inspire both disciples and scholars alike.2 In this chapter I will explore two related issues in the study of these homilies. First, the ways in which R. Nahman’s homilies retrieve and reconfigure older models of Jewish exegetical and sermonic stratagems, both the classical proemic (petihta) literature of late antique midrash and the formalized sermons in the Middle Ages and early modern period. Second, I will engage in a preliminary discussion about his hermeneutical method and the constructive ways in which he reads Scripture, focusing on his use of the term behina as a literary trope that serves as the foundation of his project of reconstructing the tradition. I will make three basic claims in this exploration into the method and style of Likkutei MoHaRan. (1) I will argue that R. Nahman shifts the focus of midrashic reading from text to praxis.3 While the midrashic proem was focused on offering innovative ways to read Scripture, R. Nahman’s Hasidic proem offers its readers new devotional methods and precepts, constructing an edifice of Jewish piety built on the foundations of halakha but going beyond it. More than an explanation or defense of the law, R. Nahman offers new ways to live while obeying the law that often includes behavior having no basis in the law itself. This pietistic edifice is constructed through creative midrashic reading integrating the 16 Shaul Magid exegetical program of the midrashists and the devotional agenda of the pietists. (2) I will argue that the Bratslav tradition has an unprecedented relationship to its central text, Likkutei MoHaRan, whose sanctity reaches the level of Scripture itself. This text is envisioned by disciples as the embodiment of the unique zaddik, the externalization of his lofty soul, and a reflection of his spiritual stature. The fact that no master succeeded R. Nahman becomes more understandable when we see his disciples’ unique relationship to his text. Becoming absorbed in Likkutei MoHaRan through devotional reading and living by its precepts does not only give the disciple access to the teachings of the zaddik—it gives him/her access to the zaddik himself. (3) I will argue that R. Nahman’s intention in his use of behina as a metamidrashic literary trope is intended to train his reader to perfect her imagination , the final tikun before the advent of the Messianic Age. R. Nahman’s associative reading liberates one from the confines and strictures of midrashic and kabbalistic hermeneutics. Through the torah of the zaddik, whose imagination is free of blemish and distortion, one can develop one’s own imaginative ability and thus participate in the unfolding messianic consciousness. Given the fact that our knowledge of the Hasidic imagination is almost exclusively derived from published sermons originally delivered orally, no serious study of Hasidic texts can proceed without paying close attention to the ways in which this literature moves from orality to literacy.4 In the case of Likkutei MoHaRan, as opposed to most early Hasidic texts, we stand in good stead. Not only are we privy to a history of its first printing, but we also have an elaborate history of the text’s redaction and editing, strengthened by the fact that the first volume was carefully reviewed by R. Nahman himself, who lived to see its publication .5 This enables us more readily to evaluate the structure of the homilies in Likkutei MoHaRan as literary documents rather than focusing solely on the text as a transcription of an oral discourse that may or may not conform to its oral origins.6 The importance of the text in Bratslav is unique among Hasidic groups.7 In my view this is an extension of the fact that, even during the waning years of R. Nahman’s life, his disciples knew that no master would...

Share