The Rising Lion: From Balaam to Leibowitz and Back Again
The Rising Lion: From Balaam to Leibowitz and Back Again
Warren Zev Harvey
Warren Zev Harvey is Professor Emeritus in the Department of Jewish Thought at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. He is the author of numerous studies on medieval and modern Jewish philosophy and the recipient of the EMET Prize in the Humanities (2009).
The great prophet of the gentiles, Balaam son of Beor, blessed the people of Israel with a blessing for military success: “Behold, a people shall rise up as a lion [labiʾ], and exalt himself as a regal lion [ari],[1] and shall not lie down until he eat of the prey and drink the blood of the slain” (Numbers 23:24).[2] Israel shall leap up like a lion and not rest until it has fully conquered its enemies. The prophet’s blessing is raw, forceful, and not politically correct. It is just because of verses like this that Friedrich Nietzsche so admired the Hebrew Bible. Indeed, what is the lion rising up and exalting himself if not the terrible blonde Bestie? Such is the morality and style of ancient Hebrew Scripture.
But “the language of the Torah is one thing, and that of the Sages something else” (BT ʿAbodah Zarah 58b). The Sages took Balaam son of Beor’s militaristic prophecy and turned it into a prophecy concerning a spiritual “rising up.” They changed “prey” and “blood” to “Torah” and “mitzvot.” In Midrash Tanḥuma (Mantua, Balak [14], 88b; Buber, Balak 23, 73a; cf. Numbers Rabbah 20:20), we read: “Behold, a people shall rise up as a lion – there is no nation in the world like them. Although they had been asleep to the Torah and the mitzvot, they awoke from their slumber like lions, eagerly recited the Shemaʿ, and proclaimed the kingship of the Holy One, blessed be He.”[4] The midrash speaks of a metaphorical slumber (cf. Maimonides, Laws of Repentance 3:4),[5] that is, a period during which Jews neglected the Torah and the mitzvot, such as the Babylonian exile, but in the end they awakened from their slumber and arose like lions to proclaim the unity of God and to crown Him as King.
In his Commentary on Numbers 23:24, Rashi quotes this text from Midrash Tanḥuma, but with significant changes. First, he does not interpret the Israelites’ sleep as metaphorical, but as literal. Second, he understands the lion to refer not to the Israelite “nation,” but to the individual Jew. Third, he conceives the character of the lion in light the Mishnah: “Be bold as a leopard, light as an eagle, swift as a gazelle, and mighty [gibbor] as a lion to do the will of your Father in heaven” (Abot 5:20).[6] Rashi writes: “‘Behold, a people shall rise up as a lion — when they awake [ʿomdin] from their sleep in the morning, they rise up mightily [mitgabberin] like a lion or regal lion [ke-ari] and eagerly perform the mitzvot: donning the tallit, reciting the Shemaʿ, and laying tefillin.”[7] In Rashi’s artfully revised midrash, the subject is not a historical event in which the people of Israel have sinned but now repent and return to monotheism, but rather it is the daily routine of the individual Jew who arises mightily each morning as a lion to perform the mitzvot. Rashi adroitly shifts the focus from nation to individual, from national morality to personal morality. Inspired by the Mishnah, he employs the verb mitgabberin (“they rise up mightily / valorously / heroically”). The Jew awakens every day at dawn and as a mighty lion he eagerly performs the mitzvot. In the words of Maharal, commenting on Rashi: “The mitzvot are acts of valor” (Gur Aryeh, ad loc.).[8]
When Rabbi Jacob ben Asher sought an opening for the “Laws of Conduct in the Morning” (Hilkhot Hanhagot ha-Adam ba-Boqer) at the beginning of his Arbaʿah Turim, he selected the Mishnah: “Be bold as a leopard, light as an eagle, swift as a gazelle, and mighty [gibbor] as a lion to do the will of your Father in heaven” (Oraḥ Ḥayyim, 1). But when Rabbi Joseph Karo sought an opening for his analogous “Laws of Conduct in the Morning” (Hilkhot Hanagat ha-Adam ba-Boqer) at the beginning of his Shulḥan ʿArukh, he recalled Rashi’s Commentary on Numbers 23:24, and wrote: “One should be mighty as a lion to arise [yitgabber ke-ari laʿamod] in the morning for the service of one’s Creator, and one should awaken the dawn! [cf. Psalms 57:9]” (Oraḥ Ḥayyim, 1).[9] The first three Hebrew words here reflect three words in Rashi’s Commentary: mitgabberin, ke-ari, and ʿomdin. Rabbi Joseph Karo thus transformed Rashi’s descriptive account of one’s morning conduct into an explicit command: One should be mighty as a lion to arise in the morning for the service of one’s Creator!
This stirring opening of the Shulḥan ʿArukh made a profound impression on the Israeli philosopher Yeshayahu Leibowitz. He quoted it frequently in his writings and lectures. In one passage he writes: “The slogan of theocentric religion is ʿabodah, the service of God, and its purpose is formulated in the first paragraph of the Shulḥan ʿArukh: One should be mighty as a lion to arise in the morning for the service of one’s Creator! In contrast to a religion conceived in terms of what it endows a person, there stands a religion conceived in terms of what it demands of a person. No opposition is deeper than this!” (Yahadut, Am Yehudi, u-Medinat Yisrael, Tel-Aviv 1975, p. 338).[10] The purpose of the demanding religion of Torah and mitzvot, Leibowitz emphasizes, is articulated in the imperative: Yitgabber! Be mighty, be valorous, be heroic! He further clarifies: “Life according to Torah and mitzvot is a life of heroism [geburah] in which a human being conquers his natural inclinations and needs and subjugates them to the service of his Creator” (ibid., p. 61).[11] The heroism of Rashi, Maharal, Rabbi Joseph Karo, and Leibowitz is that of performing the mitzvot.
At present the State of Israel has embarked on a difficult war against the Islamic Republic of Iran, and has named its campaign “Operation Rising Lion” (ʿAm ke-Labiʾ). During the long years of Exile, our Rabbis, like the homilists of Midrash Tanḥuma, Rashi, and Rabbi Joseph Karo, creatively developed a spiritual exegesis of the prophecy of Balaam son of Beor. They had a different morality and a different style. Now, with the independence of the sovereign State of Israel, we have – for better or for worse — returned to the original interpretation of the great prophet of the gentiles.
Notes:
* A Hebrew version of this article appeared in Yashar Magazine, 20 June 2025.
[1] It is difficult to translate labiʾ and ari. Hebrew has at least a half-dozen words for “lion” (ari, aryeh, kefir, labiʾ, layish, and shaḥal), while English has only one. Labiʾ may have influenced the Greek léōn, the Latin, leo, the English lion, and the Yiddish leyb. I have translated labiʾ as “lion” and ari as “regal lion” (cf. Rashi on Genesis 49:9).
[2] הֶן עָם כְּלָבִיא יָקוּם וְכַאֲרִי יִתְנַשָּׂא, לֹא יִשְׁכַּב עַד יֹאכַל טֶרֶף וְדַם חֲלָלִים יִשְׁתֶּה.
[3] לשון תורה לעצמה, לשון חכמים לעצמן.
[4] הֶן עָם כְּלָבִיא יָקוּם. אין לך אומה בעולם כיוצא בהם. הרי הם ישנים מן התורה ומן המצות, ועומדין משנתן כאריות, וחוטפין קריאת שמע וממליכין לקב”ה. I thank Rabbi Dr. Yaakov Jaffe, who has noted the very many places where the Rabbis turn military descriptions into spiritual ones; e.g., BT Berakhot 4a and 18b, Shabbat 63a, Pesaḥim 68a, Sanhedrin 7b, and 93b, and 111b, and Ḥagigah 14a.
[5] עורו ישנים משנתכם ונרדמים הקיצו מתרדמתכם וחפשו במעשיכם וחזרו בתשובה וזכרו בוראכם
(“Awake, you who sleep…from your slumber, search your deeds, return in repentance, and remember your Creator”). Cf. Immanuel Kant, Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics, ed. L.W. Beck, New York 1950, p. 8: “David Hume…interrupted my dogmatic slumber and gave my investigations in the field of speculative philosophy a new direction.”
[6] הווי עז כנמר, וקל כנשר, ורץ כצבי, וגיבור כארי, לעשות רצון אביך שבשמים.
[7] הֶן עָם כְּלָבִיא יָקוּם. כשהן עומדין משנתם שחרית, הן מתגברין כלביא וכארי לחטוף את המצוות, ללבוש טלית, לקרוא את שמע, ולהניח תפילין.
[8] ומפני שהמצוות הן גבורה, לפי שמי שעושה מצוה פועל פעולה אלוהית נפלאה (“The mitzvot are acts of valor, for whoever performs a mitzvah performs a wondrous divine act”).
[9] יתגבר כארי לעמוד בבוקר לעבודת בוראו, שיהא הוא מעורר השחר!
[10] סיסמתה של הדת התיאוצנטרית היא ‘עבודה‘, עבודת השם, ותכליתה מנוסחת בסעיף הראשון של שולחן-ערוך: ‘יתגבר כארי לעמוד בבוקר לעבודת בוראו‘. מול הדת הנתפסת מבחינת מה שהיא מעניקה לאדם, מוצגת הדת הנתפסת מבחינת מה שהיא תובעת מן האדם. ואין לך ניגוד עמוק מזה.
[11] החיים במסגרת של תורה ומצוות – הם חיי גבורה, שבהם האדם מתגבר על נטיותיו הטבעיות ועל צרכיו הטבעיים ומשעבד אותם לעבודת בוראו.
17 thoughts on “The Rising Lion: From Balaam to Leibowitz and Back Again”
God save the State of Israel from its philosophy departments.
Sue me, I form impressions quickly. Leaving aside that Leibowitz leaves a bad taste in the mouth, right there at the end we have one phrase that sums up the sickness perfectly:
“for better or for worse”
Just think about that for a second. For better or for worse, says the philosopher as he sits comfortably in his office while a military protects him from those who would murder him. For better or for worse, he writes, as if there was some doubt. For better or for worse, he muses, as if Jews were the cause of their own misfortune. For better or for worse, as his salary is paid by those he gazes down upon.
Then look up “Yashar Magazine” and see how deep it goes.
In footnote 1:
>”Labiʾ may have influenced the Greek léōn, the Latin, leo, the English lion, and the Yiddish leyb.”
For a more precise framing, see Wiktionary, entry “Reconstruction: Proto-Semitic/ labiʔ”:
” From Proto-Afroasiatic *labiʔ-. Gamkrelidze & Ivanov argue on the possibility of borrowing into Proto-Indo-European *lewo-, though it remains debatable”.
https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Semitic/labi%CA%94-
In footnote 4:
>”I thank Rabbi Dr. Yaakov Jaffe, who has noted the very many places where the Rabbis turn military descriptions into spiritual ones; e.g., BT Berakhot 4a and 18b, Shabbat 63a, Pesaḥim 68a, Sanhedrin 7b, and 93b, and 111b, and Ḥagigah 14a”.
This phenomenon has been discussed extensively in scholarship.
See also my ” “One day David went falcon-hunting”: The Demilitarized, Rabbinized, and Enchanted Story of Avishai Saving David From Yishbi-benov (II Samuel 21:15-17; Sanhedrin 95a)”
https://www.ezrabrand.com/p/one-day-david-went-falcon-hunting
Thank you very much for the very helpful references.
The author makes the ludicrous claim that the collective chazal, then Rashi, then RY Karo, all had a different “morality” than the Bible. Each to a man would undoubtedly be repulsed by such a claim. There are almost no verses in the Torah that have not been interpreted and reinterpreted and “darshened”, countless times. In no case is this done because the original and simple sense of the word is “immoral”.
Au contraire. Just to give one well-known example: the reinterpretation of עין תחת עין as financial. Obviously חז”ל saw that as the original meaning. But from an objective historical perspective, that’s drush, not pshat
Reminds me of the kid given two ties for his birthday and comes down wearing one and his mother asks “what’s wrong, you don’t like the other?”
Just because a verse is given an interpretation doesn’t mean the דורש thought there was something wrong or “immoral” with the verse as is.
The example of עין תחת עין is appropriate. In Guide of the Perplexed, III, 41, Maimonides gives two examples where the Halakhah forces us to reject the “external” meaning of the text (ט’אהר אלנץ), even when that reading illustrates a moral view which is in itself worth considering. One example is עין תחת עין (Leviticus 24:20), where the Halakhah rules ממון instead of ממש (Mekhilta, Neziqin 8; BT Baba Qamma 83b-84a). The other example is military: והיה מחנך קדוש (Deuteronomy 23:10-15), where the Halakhah interprets the “camp” as מחנה שכינה and not an army camp (BT Pesaḥim 68a).
Except there’s no evidence that was ever the actual practice.
Interestingly, it’s *Nechama* Leibowitz who points out (citing Benno Jacob) that monetary compensation may well be pshat here as well.
Fascinating post, thank you!
The idea is of a piece with noting the changes and developments in learning styles and in Biblical interpretation concurrent with the rise of Zionism and later the reconstitution of the nation’s existence in its land.
Not only was there a return to the study of neviim and ketuvim along with the rise of Zionism, but there is also now a return to an originalist and literary understanding of tanach that is more closely aligned with Israel’s contemporary situation and religious and cultural expression.
One could even see it as chazal having preserved the original core essence of torah shebichtav by placing it in a container of torah sheba’al peh for the duration of the exile; the container being more closely aligned with the Jews’ exilic situation and expression and designed to survive it; and now that Jews are back in Israel, a more originalist understanding of torah shebichtav is being drawn from its preserving container and reconstituted, matching contemporary Jewish situations and expression that, surprisingly, are more similar to those of the ancient world.
Well said.
More similar to the ancient world, I suppose, because humans- and most notably our neighbors- don’t change much.
Also we may be returning to something more closely resembling an oral culture as people read fewer long-form books and instead get snippets of information from posts on the internet or orally through podcasts.
Also, a style of learning that involves the study of sugyot and topics through source sheets, or at random intervals in sefaria, hebrewbooks, otzar hachochma and random online sources, more closely resembles the study of torah sheba’al peh in the ancient world than classical linear reading of gemara along with linear standard mefarshim, and shulchan aruch with standard nos’ei keilim.
I’m not saying we’re completely returning to the ancient world, but there’s an interesting transformation in progress that only time will tell how it plays out and what kind of effect it will have on society and on Judaism and learning.
First, I am obliged to set the record straight. I served proudly in the IDF for many years and so did all my children. As a Zionist, I consider it a great privilege to have served in the IDF, just as I consider it a great privilege to have served at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
Second, I wish to correct a serious misunderstanding. I never said that the ancient Hebrew ethos was “immoral.” The opposite is the case. I cited Nietzsche’s view that the ancient Hebrew morality was superior to modern European morality.
I did say that the morality found in the Tanḥuma, Rashi, and Shulḥan ʿArukh “differs” from that found in Balaam’s blessing. However, to say that two doctrines are “different” does not in any way imply that one of them is “immoral.” If I say that Kant’s morality differs from Hume’s, I do not imply that one is better than the other. Thus, Maimonides, in the text I cited from Guide, III, 41, explains that the morality found in the “external” meaning of the Biblical texts differs from that found in their Halakhic interpretations (e.g., עין תחת עין ממש vs. עין תחת עין ממון, or מחנה צבאי vs. מחנה שכינה), and each morality has its own distinct advantages.
True, the culture of modern Israel is more Biblical than Talmudic. This has its good ramifications, but also its less good ones.
I am glad you clarified. (Also glad that you served – “Thank you for your Service.”) But why bring morality in at all? Who says a different interpretation implies a different morality? One’s moral code affects and informs every aspect of his life. Seems to me quite a stretch to infer one’s sense of morality from a drash.
In support of the author, I understand the term ‘morality’ as used in this post to simply refer to the fact that that the focus of moral perspectives can shift over time and different perspectives may be emphasized or be brought to the fore at different times, based on shifting factual, historical and sociological realities. That doesn’t mean that one way or another is “immoral” or that moral value sets actually change, it’s simply an nod to the realities of how the world, facts and society present, and how focuses (foci?) change depending on the realities of perspective.
Academics and many others use terms in these ways, while the ultra orthodox world approaches from a perspective of greater sensitivity to these types of issues and toward the use of certain terms in particular ways. Eilu v’eilu…
Chazal make the methodological point, אין מקרא יוצא מידי פשוטו – exegeisis does not abolish the surface content of Scripture (Shabbat 63a); the sole exception serves only to underscore the universality of this rule (Yevamot 24a): אף על גב דבכל התורה כלה אין מקרא יוצא מידי פשוטו הכא אתא גזרה שוה אפיקתיה מפשטיה לגמרי”. It is an axiom of traditional Jewish thought that the spiritual is the source, essence and guiding purpose of the physical. [Cf. Bereishis Rabbah 1:1: הביט בתורה וברא עלמא – The Creator beheld the Torah and created the world on its basis.] Torah sources show that this complementarity of the spiritual and the physical extends to the conduct of Israel’s wars. Onkolos and Yonatan translate military victory לפי חרב by the Aramaic לפתגם דחרב – by the word of the sword, for every occurence of this phrase in Tanach. That means Jews fight their wars using physical means but win them by virtue of their devotion to HKBH as expressed through prayer. King David, no stranger to armed conflict, declared this to be the secret of Israel’s military success (Tehillim 208-9): אלה ברכב ואלה בסודים ואנחנו בשם יהו”ה אלהינו נזכיר. אלה כרעו ונפלו .ואנחנו קמנו ונתעודד:
Rashi ad loc:
אלה ברכב – יש מן האומות שבוטחים ברכב ברזל שלהם ויש שבוטחים בסוסיהם אבל אנחנו בשם ה’ נזכיר כי לו הישועה נזכיר לשון הקטרה ותפלה כמו מזכיר לבונה את אזכרתה ולפי’ המה יכרעו ויפולו:
[Multiple sources compiled by Imrei Shamai, at end]
The sole instance of Jewish military success by physical power alone was the killing of Bilam. That inversion of the norm came in retribution for Bilam’s usurpation of Israel’s spiritual prowess (Bamidbar 31:8): ואת בלעם בן בעור הרגו נחרב – They killed Bilam son of Beor “be’herev” [Onkolos: בחרבא] – by [means of] the sword, in contrast the normal phrase לפי חרב. Cf. Rashi ad loc:
בחרב – הוא בא על ישראל והחליף אומנתו באומנותם שאין נושעים אלא בפיהם ע”י תפלה ובקשה. ובא הוא ותפש אומנותם לקללם בפיו אף הם באו עליו והחליפו אומנותם באומנות האומות שבאין בחרב שנא’ ועל חרבך תחיה:
The Sages were not replacing the literal meaning of the texts with metaphor. Rashi, adapting the midrashim for the sake of his exegetical methodology, was not supplanting the national ethos of the texts with a personal ethos. On the contrary, both the Sages and Rashi deepen the surface meaning of the texts by alluding to the underlying spiritual strengths from which national military success in the physical world we inhabit ultimately derives. The Sages point to the spiritual preconditions of national endeavor; and Rashi identifies the personal preconditions for national spiritual cohesion. In the view of the Sages and the traditional commentators, the physical and the spiritual dimensions of the Creation are not irreconcilable but rather complementary. In my view, careful consideration of our sources shows that Professor Harvey’s imputation of radical reinterpretation of the texts to the Sages and Rashi is a category mistake that breaks with this axiom of traditional Jewish thought.
אמרי שמאי לרב שמאי בן ישראל חיים גינזבורג, בני ברק, תשלב
ויחלוש יהושע את עמלק ואת עמו לפי חרב: (שמות יז יב)
לפי חרב, מתרגם אונקלוס לפתגם דחרב, אפשר לפרש שדיבורם הוא חרבם, וזה כמו שמצינו במדרש תהלים שלהי מזמור קמ”ט: לכך נאמר רוממות אל בגרונם (תהלים קמ”ט ו’) אמר הקב”ה: אתם מרוממין אותי ואני עושה מלחמה בעדכם, כדי להצילכם מן הגלויות ומן השעבוד וכן אמר הכתוב פיהם של ישראל הוא חרבם, שנאמר “וחרב פיפיות בידם” (תהלים שם), לעשות נקמה בגוים (תהלים שם פסוק ז’), וכן בפסיקתא דרב כהנא ריש פסקא י”ב (בחודש השלישי) ר’ יודה אומר פיפיות, תורה שבכתב ותורה שבעל פה, ור’ נחמיה אמר פיפיות, פה פיות, חרב שהיא אוכלת משני צדדים, ונותנת חיים בעולם הזה ובעולם הבא, וכן איתא במדרש תנחומא פרשת ויחי אות י”ד, חרב ולה שני פיות (שופטים ג’ ט”ז), שהיא אוכלת בשני עולמות, שהיה עוסק בתורה שכתוב בה, חרב פיפיות בידם, שזוכה בעולם הזה ולעולם הבא, היינו דברי תורה שישראל עוסקין בהן, הוא החרב, לנצח בו את אויביהם כמו שאת הפסוק אשר לקחתי מיד האמורי בחרבי ובקשתי (בראשית מ”ח כ”ב) מתרגם אונקלוס בצלותי ובבעותי. כלומר התפילות עזרו לישראל לנצח את המלחמות שלא כדרך הטבע, כמו שרבינו בחיי מפרש וחמושים עלו בני ישראל (לעיל י”ג י”ח) שאין ישראל כשאר העמים שיהיו צריכים להזדיין כנגד האויבים, דרך התורה לצוות שיתנהג האדם במקצת כדרך הטבע ואח”כ יפעל הנס עיי”ש, וכן במכילתא כאן איתא: ר’ אליעזר אומר לפי חרב למה נאמר? למדנו שהמלחמה הזאת לא היתה אלא על פי הגבורה, נראה שהדיוק הוא מדכתיב כאן לפי – שהוא על פי הגבורה. וכן בפרקי דרבי אליעזר פרק מ”ד כתוב בזה הלשון: אמר משה ליהושע בחר לנו אנשים בית אבות אנשים גבורי כח וחיל יראי שמים וצא הילחם בעמלק. ומשה אהרן וחור עמדו במקום גבוה וכו’, כל ישראל כשרואין משה פורש כפיו אל השמים והם פורשים כפיהם לאביהם שבשמים הפיל הקב”ה את עמלק ואת עמו לפי חרב ע”כ. לפי”ז הנצחון היה
שלא כדרך הטבע מעין זה מפרש בעל הטורים על הפסוק ויהי בארבעים שנה (דברים א’ ג’), וזה לשונו: ב’ במסורת “ויהי בארבעים שנה”, “בארבעים אלף בישראל” (שופטים ה’ ח’) לומר אם יהיה תלמיד חכם אחד בין ארבעים אלף אין צריכים לא רומח ולא מגן כי תלמיד חכם מגן עליהם מאויביהם. עיין ברמב”ן כאן, וזה כמו דאמרינן בברכות נ”ד ע”א: הרואה אבן שישב עליה משה, בשעה שעשה יהושע מלחמה בעמלק אומר: ברוך שעשה נסים לאבותינו במקום הזה. עוד אפשר לומר שחלק התפלל וחלק לחם, כמו דאיתא במדרש רבה ותנחומא ריש פרשת מטות “אלף למטה אלף למטה” שלושת אלפים מכל שבט ושבט, י”ב אלף חלוצי צבא, י”ב אלף לשמור את הכלים וי”ב אלף לתפילה, כלומר “לפי חרב” – שחלק התפלל וחלק לחם בחרב.
What is the source of Yeshayahu Leibowitz’s famous discussion of “yitgabber”?
1. It’s not Balaam ben Beor (Numbers 23:24).
2. It’s not the Rabbis (Tanḥuma, Mantua, Balak [14], 88b; Buber, Balak 23, 73a; cf. Numbers Rabbah 20:20; and see also BT Megillah 13a on Esther 3:8).
3. Rashi (Numbers, ad loc.) is the first to introduce the word “mitgabberin” – mitgabberin… ke-ari. Unlike the Tanḥuma and the Talmud, he does not speak about the metaphorical sleep of the people of Israel, but the literal sleep of individual Jews who arise mightily like lions every morning to do the mitzvot.
4. Rabbi Joseph Karo begins his Shulḥan ʿArukh with the exhortation: “yitgabber ke-ari.” His source is not Balaam, not the Rabbis, not the Tur, but Rashi. Only Rashi uses the verb “lehitgabber,” and only he speaks about individual Jews arising mightily in the morning to do the mitzvot.
5. Leibowitz cited only Karo, but Rashi is the source of the derash.
6. If I’m not mistaken, there’s a small but significant difference between Leibowitz’s understanding of “yitgabber” and Karo’s understanding of it. For Karo, “yitgabber” seems to refer to a means (“getting up in the morning” = laʿamod ba-boqer), and the goal is “the service of one’s Creator” (ʿabodat bor ʾo). For Leibowitz, “yitgabber” seems to refer to the service of one’s Creator and thus it itself is the goal. For him, like for the Maharal, the service of God is itself geburah.
7. Moral: If you see an important idea in modern Jewish philosophy, dig a little bit and you may well find that its source is Rashi.
8. Re Rabbi Siegel’s comment about Rashi’s “exegetical methodology,” it should be noted that Rashi allows himself to modify his midrashic sources for only one reason: to make them cohere better with the peshat in accordance with his methodological statement at Genesis 3:8:
ואני לא באתי אלא לפשוטו של מקרא ולאגדה המישבת דברי המקרא דבר דבור על אופניו
In the present case, his homily coheres with the peshat better than the homily in the Tanḥuma because there is nothing in the peshat to indicate that the lion arose from a state of sin (= neglect of the torah u-mitzvot). On the contrary, Numbers 23:23 states explicitly that there is no naḥash or qesem in Israel; and see Rashi, ad loc., “they sit before Him and learn Torah from His mouth,” etc.