Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Interpreting Midrash 2 Midrash and Its L

    Uploaded by

    LeonardoSouza
    15 views9 pages

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    15 views9 pages

    Interpreting Midrash 2 Midrash and Its L

    Uploaded by

    LeonardoSouza

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 9
    Peootterts 7.3 (Stetember, /9€7): FY -300 + Coerigende. in 9.1 Saavary /N68) 157-160 ae REVIEWS. Interpreting Midrash 2: Midrash and Its Literary Contexts? Dovid Weise Halon, Murs Mibush ad Gare The fst Prion for Insel Cambridge, Massachusetts & Londam Harve Univere Peers 86,164 pp CGeolrey H. Hartman and Sanford Buick es, Mittk and Lieut, New ‘Haven & London: Yale University Pres, 1966, sh 12 pe. From the meas Sife Deuteronomy: “May ay teaching come dwn athe sin" (Deu. 32:2 ut al flon tres andnfne ech typ ith dite vor grape wth itive. he ove te tft i ee ith We Berea os srordvof Tahar alle bt hey some mar Garter se sa I each xen) ks fan ng ara Ths pnage sun phe calenge of iterpsing mach he der conte of ating hieatute’ Os thee and ech bane feb aes its tinct “avr” whe on tht ates they teal nourhed by ¢ Common testy Ths dal ton leds fae bow the formal siverty of abi asourse—n ls signin tan cone vers Stopon—maintsined in sion otheeonvere clamor actin ty? “Tha daciof avery and unt bermeen she vanes sine Torch hast recently been saseneé 9 Bod ee Hain hh ach ff Gime eh Pb or ala he nepal mach in such sway ath fo ingore shar mer of rebel {G09 Whi the maha form serine fay stat an ndestion ‘errant matures emergence spared midesh to sume on ces alecicl postr, eguing sod ing ule possible (9) According to Haken. it war the tangle of the tomplen, dalogal rudrshic form that ensbied and ensuraged the fifth century anonyeeor ‘elacor of he Bubylonan GemarsGhe-Stammnim to fal overcame te [Sthonty ofthe Mibesh so srto rater, now with cvem arene verve the Jewish preieton for jn low During Rabb dah the Patriarch’ time. i seemed af Mishnaic form wae superseding Midsshic forms that Jew lw He th laws a other Peles. would be mainly apedietic, or accompanied by jstfcaton, Bit of logical =. "e wus the Stammaim wh broke raha with spodicity and concentrated lst exclusively onthe Sacartive, restoring Jesh Io to ts orignal jsttcatory ature Like Meath apd ke some 2 Revs» : parts of the Bible, the Gomara reaffirmed the principle that Jew aw Eannot be eategoial (p91) “This epacy wos inherited in turn by melesal rabbinic commentators who resfirmed through thar preservation ad settiny af won-appcatle ln and ejected legal opinions, the pincpl that Jesh egal lscourse has value is ‘oven right Flows olgaion and Fool worship. The"road leading from totve clases in the Bible ta iaiatence on tad span end intel” conifer “ito ou own tes.) For purpose ot this review efsy is npaeant tolstress Hallas conclusion that wae largely under the influence of eg mdrash that Jwsh learning abandoned the path 6 apie lw, a repee- ented bythe temporary detour of the Mishnah, dnd resumed its “natura nainctve” pth of jtiied law, 25 repeesented by the midsohie ste Returning tothe tree metaphor with which begat nrash, at east ini ogal ‘iets not simply ane among the several varies of rabbi Terni, But the one hat defines what makes them one snd tel them apart from she, non-Jewish forest of legal dacourse® “Anyone familar with the rabbinic legal ad nonlegal midrashim snd the Genta will eady sosent to Hall's ehiactecestion of the lace Alalogcal qualities of their forme of drcrte. If the advantage of sco [Newsner’s view of mirash i ite attention #9 particular documentary expres on? then the advantage of Hair’ view i it attention fo the perttalar Shape of midashic discourse ia relation #0 the broader context of eabbinic leratare' overall Mare problematic ithe dural scheme sehich Hall evelops for interpreting that relationship. Whereas Newsner views the ealy Imirachiceoleions as istorialy motivate responses othe dominant style Sindauthorty ofthe Mishnah which preceded her, Hal views the Maha {ba temporary, hstorally motivated detout om the path of egal discourse Frevioulycttblished by leg mirash: Depts tele opposite etinations of the relation between mideaohic snd mishagie form, the arguments of these two scholars are similar in two regards (i Both over-ayom what {ave ‘tgued in my discussion of Newsnera rks fqulsionble Bnew candi Into medal for the development of rabbinic Iterstare and ts discourse (G) Both impose a dualistic categorization on the history of rabbi teratute ‘vegetal ve yogic for Neuener,apodeie vs. Jrtiled for Halon, wth ‘ach hieraccllyprvleping the latter over the former 1 shall examine Malluns argument terms ofthese two pit Tn saigning what he define at the idashic form of lege learning (seritutlly relate) to the pot tibea period (gcond century BCE. wnt ca, 50 CE) and the minal form (ategrial foley ordered tothe michal period {cr 99 CE untl ex 225 CE), Hab confues these two wo txpresing Jewish lar with the rabbinc Eaton of to types of redacted Same the earst dross olection (Ss tes, Mekitas as relstvely {tematic emer to Bibel books or pars thereof and the Misha (of A judah the Putarch) aa relatively systematic ofa, topically aly underestimates the methodolgiell difiutiee in determining ‘what form Jewish etning and transmission of law tok in Second Temple Times. Oa the ane hand we have extant rain text, dated nocarber than the begining ofthe hid century CE, which often claim to describe legal ‘havior for Temple times and scribe lea opinions to Second Tempe sag. nthe other hand we have the extant legal writings of Second Temple Jews ome ented with parcalar Jewish "sets" ome nt. Which if ony ofthese an tll us how Second Temple Jews in general or Phas Jews in patcular Framed thee eal tention for teaching and transmission? Even f Halon examples of mishnae dre ould be dated tthe ist and second centuries BCE, ll we would knot i that sie legal traditions ‘reve framed in relation t sri prooftext. But his we lead know from the Damascus Document, Halon, however, wishes to prove much more: hat the midrash frm was the down, even “exclusive” form of Jewish legal learning and transmission, Thi cannot be aecerained from the avaible evidence ‘Mort surviving las! ext from the Second Temple period donot present their laws in expicirelton 2 Seripute. They ether "paraphrase biblical Taw prose rules independently of Serigtute. or do some of both As Long as such tate donot state ther laws in explicit elton to Serpture, Halla rectly refuse abel hem midrash. OF the extant Second Temple legal {stem the Damancus Document egulerly ct septal proatents, employ Ing exegliclerninoloy n doing 20 But most of the extant eal texte from thus pero, besides stating lave free of acrptral proofs, group the laws toplaliy evidencing what Hall calle the mishaic form of legal le Tome tah without expt scriptural tation or argumentation and grouped ‘cording to thei topics: Temple Seo Jubllees 49-50, and Josephus A ten Bok 4" Inthe cate of the Damascus Document topcl reordering and the adducing of sripturalprooftests are combined But in none ofthese Second ‘Temple tert the grouping of live according to tops anywhere as extensive {inf syetematie avin the Mishoak. Curiously, from this ped Its Philo of ‘lecondrio who comes slove! toa systema opr reordering of scriptural law Inhis On Sp Lar he groups Jewsh aws under te cripraral heads sf the Ten Commandment. Simlry, when we find i Second Temple literature what Halla defines a the mide form of lgal learning (arin the Damascus Document), we 40 Sot find laws eystematically organized acording 1 these of Seipure, 0 ‘or earls collections of tic legal midrash. Once again, i Pio who provider the closest analogue, im his thetorcl legal commentary Quin ed ‘oor o Exar “Thus: the mort we can conclude fom the ete evdence that Jewish ve in Secnd Temple ines was expressed bth in Felton to scriptural prftexts "nin autonomously sated, topical groupings. anything We have signi intr more evidence for theater than forthe Former “Azninat the sketchy batkgsound of these partial antecedents, bth the Misha of Rab Judah the Fatrarch and the ealest rabbinic collections of legal midrashappearto beradially innovative in thelr lterary organization and Pras 29 tae into eistece at roughly the same tine, both coexisted for awhile? and tock hed « profound impact onthe subeequene development of Jewish legal “Gecoure, a both code and commentary conned to erave whl emalning "ape of course a wel at inthe oe they atsgnto human intellect (bel in tery diferent moder) inthe stu, extension and application of revelation Ihe ite forthe Mahnh, lal mmenury forthe eatbest mirarhim- Both In dhlectal tension and interdependence, throaghout the history of dais Haiva's prvlegngdvaron between pode and usted law, a ision which underes is thesis of «natural Jewish predilection forthe Ite, Try mato sharply and sarily denvns# On the one nd, fs not ‘dear thatthe Mshnah canbe 0 simpy labeled apo.” For the Mish to te Sscursie: be in » very different way than legal mirash I 00 Poses thetorclquetons of ype appropriate to code ané net cometary) 100 [precerves minonty legal opinions too present legal duputes and confleling oat ponaplee without iditing ther tesalton, foo deals with none ‘Sppbcabc lawn short, ito inviterurmanpartipation i the continuous Sfcling of revelaon by requiring engaged study of its text through "Oe the other hand, ite not cer that ibcal motive clauses, simple and ample mndeaah the dnlogcaldacurse ofthe Gemara, medieval pashan Same pel ae best pthered under the single rubric of"usiestion.” Is ‘Fike pinay motivation ofthese decrsve modes oushfy—that ito show {he maces fora? The long-rtanding Jewish debate over whether Jewish ie Shoald be provided wih ie resons, and whether by 0 doing” one [Reengthens or weaken authority, too comples to enter ito here, But oak the the the wrong rubric under which to group there diverse forms of Sept Secourve Rather, their common purpose, a» Hav himsl correctly pote athough in aferent words decidedly dis "Bat the dauccs of rain logal discourse has, as does al effective pedeeagy troll purpoe (2) ta cmeey rman and (2 to do 29 ach SPesencing even sensual anaet ato bring the sedent subly into SI, wih that iformation, ut alse with the methods, soca Sesaee and iphed values ofthe podapoay.® These two ame are aay in ‘Ceeey abace and Wt lkely that any singe teaching method alone can eal accomptah both While the mishaic mae of lepldsouree which have Toone coe, concentrates is energies onthe former and the midrashi ‘mode of commentary concentrate ts energies onthe later each hat elements ‘toch. While Han! coresy ates the dependence of mishnaic discourse Son the mdrahicdecourse which supprte Ite does ot ive adequate ‘Shenton tothe converse: the data interplay of commentary Grcuding ‘he egal Kd snumes (ad rset) the relative stay of am accepted code, ‘whether Seniptare forthe mirathet or the Mishnah forthe anonymous {entrs of the Gemars!” Thus, efectivesabbink legal (a wel as non legal) (pedueony eeu m inermintare of cade and commentary, both between the ‘Sanches of rabbinic discourse and more sul within each branch "Stone point Hsin’ pls that the fact that the mish form “froze” alter the death of Rabb fudch the Patriarch, whl the midrashic form continu to eve, i sign of the forme’ aberrant nature (p64) Rather, this ea consequence ofthe necenny ference between coe and commen tang the ater grows and evolves with tne thereby affirming the author that is continued aplebiity ofthe Former, whe the former provides 6 Hable bare and soure of surtenance for such growth, But legal commentary. {Iuetoit incremental ature, can row and spresd vo lanuratly ast become Uinmanagesble for practical appcation. When ths occurs new code may be ‘Teted which both model elt onthe old code nd sbrorbe qualtes of “ommentry, which has ast come to acque something of the authority of Cote" “Thus the sips ofthe Mishoah by is commentary ned not eepesen 26 aval avers a negative jdgment fa form by the restore ofthe Gemaea, butitvery complementation. This cpr in time required the restion of new ode (eps Mumoniger's Miri Tora) which took a their precedent, muta ‘nutanda the model of the Mighnah Likewise, just a the Michnah eventually ucceoded Scieute atthe principal focor of legal commentary, 0 too the CGemart'e commentary eventually succeeded tht of legal mts, DUE ot Srithout sessing bany of te tastions and much of Ht dalogilly UUncursive syle While we ned to understand such tens of code and comme tary in relation tothe historical exigeci ofthe times of thee crestons, we lke necd to understand them in relation tothe hermeneutical exigencies of thei compex interdependence ‘Such dalocical view ofthe interrelation of mishrah and meas, of cole ‘and commentary, of tule snd reaton, and of information and pleasute caste alate mdrash Ins concptual light which permite its contrast And com parla nat only wth the Mahnsh, But wth aggacemidrah ae with he ote rancher of rabbinic dacoursesehich are aes fom rabbinic perspective ‘Tor Wsching) ae with prerbbinc and postalanic Jewish modes of lea learning ss with non Jewish modes of legal courses with eray code and Commentary most generally sil By insisting on the dualistic steratves of fxcpess and syle, and apodietic and [efed Law, both, Never and Falla despite thei opposite coneusins sigan precapose, and there- fore frustrate such potetallyfrutfl comparative inguin the broader literary content frie idea i Joab Neuter interprets midrash in relation to ts contest of scree whole document aad Davie Weis Halt interprets iin relton t0 15 Troader context of Teich legal dacourse from Bible through ppl. then Geotrey Hartman and Sanford Buck in their elite volume Milash and inate interpret mideash within the sil Larger sd more open contest of literature overall The porpse of his collection of eghten contributions by 3: many cic of Hebrew Bible rain, kabbuoh, and iterstare ie artelated Ine eiorsinroducton to demonstrate that mieashs mode” of "mode ‘tinterpeetation as much to teach modern eadersof erature, and hat ins ‘hentai idrash quite at home among the test heortzing dsusions St iterate and ie Interpretation. These tras are essentially three and interned Protas 21 (2) Midrash in ite multiple readings of Scripture recognizes the “unde “qibey" or indeterminacy” of textual meaning. Ths mirashic asertion of ‘he infocs of Torah seconde with etan portstucturalit trary theories ‘which view ental meanings revising peicpally inthe ends activity of UDrerpectatonthe shuttle space between the Interpreter and the text” (@ nirather han inthe univocal ext a he product of an hstorcal author or SB therafecion of an exratertual context "al Mareshicexegens exits quis of itertextalty” or “llsive estas” Maras in interpreting a parila fapmentofSrptre alludes {Send sssciively draws moter festa fragments both reading and rening a nebof-textuaity""metonymic montage” (Hartman, 18) Ths {So aecerds wt psttrutoralet theories in which te indeterminate textual Sgr suques meaning the exten that one can speakot such only through (Sng rend in anomie jutaporition eth ferent textual signs “St inaly nd most important, what ie remarkable and exemplary in ‘mitesh sno simply the presence the it to tals, but the re, open aie, serinly playful, and italiy creative way in which they cooperate Eure moitaning ts stentveners to and veneration of “onginary™ ‘Sonprae thereby subordiating isl to Seipture’ text and authority dares Secxtend Scripture an textual canon through a seemingly endless process of (Secrest! spplementstion. ohereby revelation te genewed (and renews) ‘Secugh ie seiterpretation."Mieash is een to affirm the integsty and Totonny ofthe ecptral text while fragmenting i and sowing it endlessly paso. Paredovcaly,mudcashic exegesis both merges withthe text I ter (Fe and pene ssp” betven that ext and ts inerpreters, Miras dares Seesies tht space always poten abys), where, rather than suffering (eee acquires ts on dynamic Voie. et as ed Les both tention and in the strctare ofits intents offers rnther, remarkably sutra! argument. The midrshic mode SESE ccuing trom within Serpare ie into the presnt iterary (momene Having te rv in nne- bibl interpretation (Ble and Midas, ‘Eemtashe mode achieved dramatic Falls in the cassia eabbinc west of (Segndah CMurach and Aggaiah’) ater finding heightened expression inthe ‘Bearane of kabbalah (From Midrash to Kabah In postelightenment fc. deapie aving been ignored, suppressed. or perverted By the "autho- ‘ec inerpeters—tn church and uriveray” ps seed was carried by the [reat pvt iho wrote ut of the western raion” who somehow evidenced Er camtence in our collective iterary imagination” bids "Uterature and Nedrsho) Only recently has the mirashie mode once again "cme int it ‘er n-tomtecpoaryeretre cia, and theory,” entering ino come {Show among the any terary-rtial approaches now vying for isitational Spproval Ohad). The rvult of thi long journey ithe “recovery” of mieash (Gai te terver in our day Contemporary Midrash”. Ava whole, then, iss in ts srt! outing, the volume constter a mideashic "hain of ‘adiion” from Sinai fo Rabi Abs to kabbulsh to “Reb Miton” to "Reb Derse" ipa “Frus Murack ond Lier draws for us two map: (1) an inne “mappingof the resemblance" (p 2) between anil mirash and contemporary Mera, crcem, and theory and (2) an implied outer mapping ofthe historia, even Genetic tute from the former to the late. [Not surprisingly, our Merary cartographers are more confident and convincing in thes drawing of the ler teary map than the outer stoned tne, The intraducory laine for historical contin. oF influence fom indeash to modern iterature and Iterary theory ae spy not sustained by the lume contributor (oscept, a» may be expected, In Gershon Shakedt {rentment of SY. Agnon. At best they otlyhabbalah asthe wising ink Surhere ts probubly through Christian intermedares hat any influence wat CHected. Thus Borger mideashic syle raid to “converge” with Habblstc ‘aegesis (Myrna Slotoreraky, p 263), while Milton's mide syle tated eck'co Phil but by way of Christian intermediaries Buick pp. 198,208. ‘These ex the aurston whether kabealah or Philo can be said to represent Inlireh Yet even with repaté to the proposed inner map of resemblance rmurring questions sree, notwithstanding the etre’ own caveat that SSesemblance i twenty” ip). Before consering some these quertins lt meclanfy my own intrest, in thermator of "ilrash an iteratures The place of the conjunction in such puting never innocent. Although the editors claim te devote he volume 10 ‘Roth the Hatori cular Judaic phenomenon of midrash itself, and the resemblances between midash and highly sumer eteal phenomena which, for whatever teavone have acuired cental importance in contemporasTy erature crim, and theory Ip. the “and” of mirash and Heratre! pms ove rom let fo ig, Mideath az 2 model is employed to challenge Retained sosumplons about iterstre, but bterary models (of which even tmong povstracturante ther are ques few) are not employed fo challenge Similaryingesinedssumptons about mideash, One eynprom of this ithe at {hor modern sthore receive idivdultrestinent, whereas lvl midash {rested forthe mor! par inthe lump, with only one extended analyse ofan {tual miceahictext (by David Sera. As someone whose competence is more in mrach than in modern Itersture, [might leptimately ak whether the meeting of madsash with Merature 28 (occurs inthis volume ehcdates Imurach, snd whether the igure of midrash thet iempoyed hereto elucidate Imodern erature hasnt become an overworked metaphor, rubbed sooth of {me ofits own diverse apd dative contours Lexan begin mith the most banc, yet unanked, question regarding the cmployoent of mdash atx mal for iteratare how ba mode of ideas Ee buit? This question comprises two sts of questions (2) What the testal corpus fom stich sucha model isto be derived ‘and how wll the conttuents of that corpus be weighted? To pick ust one ‘ample, wil he midrasic model draw from halakha well from agg33i ‘ewok? Midsh on Litre virtually ignores alae ideas, so much the evr of Hal tcetoent of midrash,sosuming of several points tha Inurach i aggadsh, odin From halakha To this couse legal exegesis Eos nor contorm tothe prefered model of midrashic “undesaablny” or Prete asa legal eiscourse doesnot conform to prefered model of teary Te? PD) Once the corpus of midatlc dati established, how wilt aint ‘harsccroncs be Wentifed an pind 2028 to fashion a coherent model of ‘Sitstt Can uch mode be contracted that reflective of» millenium of ‘Besrechc decorse allie civersty of form and fonction, and yet be Upptcale to moder Merry tens Ina less diverse certainly) another milen- ize rey? Contemporistion always requires degre of esentiliation, Tabwrc net tobe consios ofl reducve and totalizing consequences ‘Th danger of "tretcing”midash in order #0 apply Ir a8 + model 10 ‘Soden berature acknowledged by Harold Fach ‘Miashim are not novels sell, anythe are not Shakespearean drama. Bes rary res have long ago teen over myth fom te anthropologists tnd archetype from the stil peychologsts without prejudice tthe Sor hove terme ate sl tard by the profesional specs 1 ‘ebnczed on both sides that there value in stetching terms ike these ‘The alee, ould sem, is not only In providing » language for | tedcipinary communications, but in fecng the eateries thus di ced trom formal boundaries and restriction and voli fir phe perme. 28, emphasised) a Bot here a gr ference between mol Broningbtrer ice “gees era sty, so te coeston a eer ery SESE Sor etme tcey svn. Even ror dvs mio have # “Phe © ESS Tainan te vleet “Soc” taken ve FED Tine hats witin rhe car cntest of abt dacs, SES Preheat set dcrig of he ery ly a SEUSS mir aur tne uly onl vch rartrence rane SESS TSreni ore e rohan thre Terre te epee hn mr appreche ae SST Tine ar Sindee or atic rom bok SEE LT nm ite maine tore oot by the methods EET tense! enone indetermincy ochre of TEGRI Sti aren snene uth of the tomate nd amore FSET en rhe, more sree of certain ame of Tia entens ch Move il gun seater bain hee ‘Scipecie eee and thew andctinngthelgealnthoplg SESE There oroporlnterprerion 1586 1880.907 Sees Tt meets amor ne mulebty of mening seeaders pene Once rested decree mir fens ne econ ESSE atti epee aa tite forma someone SEE ica hve been ses nore in the merk of comme DENIES atitace torcoden wchsoconerinandcontion ‘RPstapannear’ of rn ces tn edah an bth aPGEeT acne ta ale “esr poten the conte and ocunapon theo of ate Serve fm the hele pes TES cy and oly othe ted ex. The pean a REVIEWS fs that once detached fom such thelogicl principles soa to be apled to fecolr lerstre, the mieashicIterary model ne longer sues such con= Mosaic” But the gains asertlon of Senprare’s multwocaty i equally rected the theological principle of Scriptures divin source and holy aru. the mide able ad» theory #0 propound was nt so meh ‘One of language oof interpretation in generale of dine reveltion ad Iman eaization within ewish socey. However the suede nat so much the Srerworked distinction boven sacred” and seca” poetic, porou at these two ndletver are asthe ereaive conerant” placed upon all forms of IMterpeeation by their patel eltral and voc settng and the conse tuentdficlty fling interpretation, whether ints general eines o Ite patclar expressions fom thove vatings. The mrashc bbs, 1m parscular, were a8 musth constrained inthe interpretations by what they “nderstod tobe theron of meanings permite by the Hebrew of Seite 0 ty the teadtion af otespretation (both practal and ideation) which they ‘ecivedslng with Serptre ary thee Rermenetal conventions 2 by the Seciohstorieal exegences oftheir ne Evens the Necrarclel opposition of exegetical fesdom and constrain isetf misleading For the constraining. parameters lust mentioned are not tinplyevternl boundaries othe freewheeling mdrashic discourse within but thevery sfoverscentnfugl a well ae centpetal hich inthe alent tnerice and, n'a sense, detun tht cacourse. The question then not how Ech force constrain meash but how they conse, in thet lca Censions with one antes very work and mesrae, ‘Does mires infect exemplify "disaluion of inddual authorship” (Solororevshy, 253) the -veny effacement of el px ll irashke Terature beng “peeepurapba” bi? While certain porstactraist theo- rier of terature slcbrate the elie ofthe author, the matter ofthe pce of {he “author” within mideash is more comple, expacily when wwe In is ‘we leroy historical conten. ‘Among. mirarh's preabbinic exegetical antecedents whole bodies of Interpretation are ether peeudeigrphealy aftiboted to bal seers. Enoch to prophenienuhoriies egy the Teacher of Righteouanes) ort Feveaton lel ley the Temple Srl or ae claimed by human authors 2¢ ot being interpreteiion at ale orephue® By contest, rabbinic mideash, Tike cabins erature in genera: resents self ava corp of interpretation tine sli wisdom and authonty trace back t Sina, but whose dicrete [Mustons ae often creed to edd named rabbis or schools of rabbis Sometines portrayed In unabashed exegetical debate with one anther. Viewed inven bronderieraty-isoriesl conten, tay be sad thatFabine ideas i posed between the often anonymous, revealed” exegeser of Second Temple nes andthe individually authored commentaries of medieval Judasm Tht Snonymaus yet authored srucuve of mirashicdacoure ie exresive of {obneInersure's overall reliorocal function of dletiely malting [etween divine revelation and fs Raman resization "This medatonal function i formally expressed in mideashis various Sing structures inthe recasting of serptural verses of sequences f verses 1 dllogues (between ibal characters, Between God and lal betwen Pras 2s and the nation) nthe rhetorical questioning of Sripture (eg. "Why ‘hs a?) inthe exegetical logs of rabbis with one another snd with ers and more plein the "ictional” ostaposiion of prootents, of ‘Seerseveencrpretaions, of arsles snd pros, and of ws ad areatives> ‘fac. the word Salis!” tal foo reductive «description. expecially ft Iai cs to consider mideah only for ss expt dlalogue (or “shuttle? “Sree the imerprete and the (bla) test (px) and nt for ts mpiok

    You might also like