So, here we go. As I said earlier, the main question we're going to look at is this question of commitment and critique. Our first example, we'll be studying a text, rabbinic texts Tosefta, which in fact raises the question of how do you on the one hand read these biblical texts and at the same time what are some of the complications, sensitivities or considerations that have to be taken into account? So, as you may know, there was a practice that in the rabbinic times that the text was read by a reader in the Hebrew from the original text, but the same time there was somebody who was called a Amitogam or translator. This translator would translate the texts from the Hebrew into the vernacular, into the Aramaic which would make it accessible and comprehensible to the readers who were listening to the text being read. So, our Tosefta that we're going to look at, in fact poses a fascinating question, and it says the following; there are certain texts that are read and translated. In other words, there are certain biblical texts that we read and we translate. There are some texts that we read, but we don't translate into Aramaic, and then there are other texts which are not read and are not translated. So, here we have three different types of categories which are ultimately, what they do is they present a way of understanding what were some of those texts that the rabbis felt might be difficult or challenging for the general population to understand, and therefore they came up with this type of formula. So, here we go. There are texts that are read and translated, in other words those texts that are read as well as translated into Aramaic, but there's some texts which are read and are not translated into the Aramaic. Then, there are other texts which are not read and are not translated. We're going to focus on the first two categories. So, the Tosefta continues, and says the text about creation is read and translated. Now, as soon as you see that a text appears in this listing, then obviously, it had to have aroused some type of question or some type of doubt in the rabbis minds. But here they say that the texts about creation at the beginning of Genesis is read and translated. So, too, there are texts about Lot and his two daughters, is a text that has read and translated. In other words, if you remember in Bereishit 19, there's the story there after the destruction of Sodom that Lot and his two daughters escaped to the mountains, and then the story is told about the two daughters who decide to uncover their fathers clothing. That text is read and translated. So, we see here that obviously there were certain hesitations, but at the end of the day, the rabbis say that it should be read as well as translated. Then, the texts about Judah and Tamar is read and translated. So, too, the first text about the golden calf is read and translated. We're talking about from Shemot 32, once again, it's a problematic texts because of the behavior of the Israelites right after they had received the Ten Commandments, right after they'd received the Torah as well as the questionable behavior of Aaron. But, nonetheless, the rabbis say that this text is read and translated. So, too the text about Amnon and Tamar, read and translated. Then, you have the story about of Abshalom and father's concubines. That's a problematic texts obviously because Abshalom has sexual relations with his father's concubines. But even here the rabbis ultimately decide that it should be read as well as translated. So, too the texts about the mistress in the hill, which is read and translated. Piliges begiva from Judges 19. As we continue though, we see something which takes a little bit of a twist. Here, the text about Reuven, I'm continuing from the Tosefta is read and not translated. So, here we have for the first time an example of a Biblical text, and I should emphasize that this text is from the Humash and not from the prophets, and therefore the decision to read and not translate it is even more radical than if it would have appeared in the prophets because the Humash is read every Shabbat or is read every Shabbat. There it has a higher level of holiness, and therefore the rabbis would be much less reticent to not translate it than if it was a prophets text. So, here they say the text about Reuven is read and not translated. Then, they tell a fascinating story. An incident was told about Rabbi Hananya son of Gamliel. He was reading from the Torah in Acre. He's reading it in the Acre, and he comes to the verse, and this is from Bereishit 35:22. It came to pass when Yisrael dwelt in that land, when Jacob was living in that land that Reuven his son, went and lay with Bilha his father's concubine. Yisreal, Jacob heard of it now the sons of Jacob were 12. Now, this is a very difficult verse to unravel and much has been written about this verse, it doesn't seem to flow, there seemed to be different types of pieces to it. But in any event, in the story about Rabbi Hananya son of Gamliel, in his synagogue when they read it, he told their translator "Only translate the second half of the verse." In other words, what he told the translator to do is he said, "Skip the first half in terms of translation and only translate the part that we have here in bold print." Now, the sons of Jacob were 12. Now, the reason why this is so fascinating is that this is the one text that we're looking at in the Tosefta where it's acknowledged that it should be read however, because of the problematic nature that Reuven apparently slept with his father's concubine, Rabbi Hananya son of Gamliel said, you have to read it however, do not translate that first part, which is the more problematic section of that verse. Now, this raises enormous amount of curiosity. This is a fascinating educational debate, and ultimately, this relates to our question. In other words, how much do you explain about the characters? In this case, the rabbis felt that the fact that Reuven slept with his father's concubine was so difficult to understand that they decided ultimately to read the verse in the Torah reading. However, they also decided that it should not be translated, it should not be accessible to the general public. So, what we have here is a wonderful example of the Rabbis being concerned that on the one hand, you have to read the biblical texts, but the same time, they were concerned that if people would understand what the meaning of Reuven who was one of the 12 tribes that he in fact slept with his father's concubines, they felt that that would be a problematic issue for people to understand and appreciate. So, this ultimately is a form of censorship, which the rabbis exercise because in fact, they were concerned as we are educationally in terms of the the tension between on the one hand commitment to the great, characters including Reuven who was one of the 12 sons of Jacob. At the same time, how do you balance that with critique? So, here they took a hard decision to censor this text in the sense that they read it, however they decided that ultimately, it should not be translated into a language that would be accessible to all the people who were listening to this in the synagogues. A fascinating educational experiment. In order for us to understand and appreciate what's going on in this Tosefta text, I'd like to suggest as an exercise which will help you try to achieve a deeper understanding about the issues at stake, and why the rabbis decided to do what they did. What I'd like to ask you to do is the following: first of all review two stories, select two of them and suggest how you might teach them. Out of the list that appears, choose two, and then suggest how you might teach them with all the questions that are included in your considerations. Two, which of the list of stories do you believe are most morally problematic for your teaching? In other words, this is a more subjective choice where you have to think which ones are most difficult for you from your moral perspective. The third question is, which of these stories if any would you have suggested not to be read or not to be translated? Are there any stories not included in this list that you would've included? In other words, the rabbis selected certain stories which appear to them as problematic. But perhaps you as the reader feel that there are additional stories that should have been included in this list and were not. So, why don't you think to yourself which additional stories could have been included in this list and were not, and explain why you chose those in addition or in replacement of those that the Rabbi selected. Thank you.
