continued

here's more of the abuhatsira piece, because i promised i would post it, and some people might even read it, and i also really like translating things...

recall, the main questions:
1- why use the term "eshet chayil?"
2- how can chochmah, nevuah, and Torah seemingly disagree with the KBH?
3- How does the author decide what response to attribute to whom?a- why is atonement-by-death attributed to prophecy, when prophetic writings also refer to repentance.b- why is repentance attributed to the KBH only, when (both the prophets and) the Torah contain references to teshuvah. c- why is the prooftext for teshuvah attributed to the KBH if it is in teh writings, which would ordinarily be considered "chochmah."

despite my love of translating, i think this will be easier to understand if i paraphrase/outline:

I - sinning leads to blemishing (pogem) the letters of God's 4-letter name. different levels of sin blemish kmore letters - so some blemish only the final heh, some vav heh, etc. the more you blemish, the worse the punishment.
[based on "the holy Zohar and the tikkunim and the words of the ARI z"l, and all the kabbalists."]

II - blemishing the first two letters is exponentially worse than blemishing the first two. between the first two, blemishing yud is exponentially worse than bleimishing heh.

cool derushy excursus on this point: maybe this is what Amos meant, "for the three transgression of Israel, and for the fourht shall I not return him?" (lo ashivenu. JPS reads not as a rhetorical question, but rather as "I shall not reverse it." i forget where i saw it as rhetorical, but i'm pretty sure i did...) (amos 2:6) the three peshaim are three levels of sin that blemish the final three letters. we know, however, that (shabbat 104a), "he who comes to be purified, they (heavenly forces) help him." however, one who reaches the fourth level of sin - blemishing the yud - loses this. ie, "lo ashivenu" means "I (God) will not help him do teshuvah."
such a person must "litroach u-lehamit atsmo laasot teshuvah gemurah." - try really hard and kill himself (literally?) to do complete teshuvah, because he has no help from heaven.

second derushy excursus: this is also what david meant when he said (tehillim 51:6) "Against Thee, Thee only, have I sinned, and done that which is evil in Thy sight; {N}that Thou mayest be justified when Thou speakest, and be in the right when Thou judgest." (JPS)
the psalm is adressed to E-lokim, which is shechinah, which is the final heh. david only sinned on the lowest level - against the shechinah - so his teshuvah is easier and readily accepted.
third derushy super-tangeant - ex. 19:21-22 "al yeharsu el haShem lir'ot.... pen yifrots bam" - pirtsah, or serious/unavoidable destruction, only occurs when people destroy the entire name.

III - this 4-level conception of sin may also be what yitro referred to when he described (ex. 19:21) the men mosheh should appoint as judges. what does the four-pronged description give that the simple, but all -inclusive description "yir'ei Elokim" leaves out? rather, it means that they are so holy that their good deeds have led to a tikkun of all four letters. "anshei chayyil" refers to the "hosts" of the four letters, that exist properly only when the yud is properly metukan. so "chayil" becomes a key-word for the yud and its three affiliates.
(he similarly assignes each phrase to a letter. i'm skipping that becuase this isa lready getting too kabbalistic for this context)

IV - this is what eshet chayyil means - a woman who has not sinned against the yud or any of its affiliates.

V - getting back to the midrash, the four personages asked "what is the punishment of a sinner?" are really the four letters:
1st letter = chochmah, so the sin is really great.
2nd letter = nevuah, so sin merits death
3d letter = torah. atonement is easier - requires only a korban
4th letter = KBH. atonement is easiest. requires only teshuvah.*

the end. (ok, so he ends with a thing about how "eshet chayyil " really is hard to fid because most women are too concerned about looking pretty, good mussar for us all...)

*presumably, a korban only works when it comes with teshuvah, as does death. otherwise, it's hard to see how a korban is more chamur than teshuvah. (?)

summary:
this answers-
question 1 - both terms, yir'ah and chayyil, are use by yitro, also with different meanings. "yir'at haShem" is NOT synonymous with chayyil - the latter is not a general "of valor," but a specific "has left the entire name of God intact."
q. 2 - KBH is not the definitive word of God here, rather, God speaking regarding one aspect of God's name, so the four speakers speak from different, non-contradictory, perspectives - they really speak about four different situations.
q. 3 - because "chochmah," "nevuah" etc are technical terms refering to letters of the Name, they don't need to correspond to more general, literary uses of the same terms in other contexts.

i thought this was cool. esp. the reading of "al sheloshah pish'ei yisrael" and the tie-in to chayyil. really, though, i liked the methodology in this sort of reading - tying up a lot of seemingly loose ends to make a cool point. i hope i conveyed that decently here.

question: r.y. abuhatsira's reading of the midrash is to place the four personages in a heirarchy, and have them respond to four levels of sin. is there a way to read the midrash (especially for the less mystically inclined) as four aspects of a response to the same level of sin - ie, depending on your theological perspective (torah, chochmah, nevuah, etc..), sin as such requires different responses?

shavua tov.