{"id":536,"date":"2013-04-25T20:24:21","date_gmt":"2013-04-25T20:24:21","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/pages.charlotte.edu\/john-reeves\/?page_id=536"},"modified":"2013-05-30T12:22:53","modified_gmt":"2013-05-30T16:22:53","slug":"addendum-an-brief-introduction-to-rabbinic-exegesis-of-the-bible","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/pages.charlotte.edu\/john-reeves\/course-materials\/rels-4107\/addendum-an-brief-introduction-to-rabbinic-exegesis-of-the-bible\/","title":{"rendered":"A Brief Introduction to Rabbinic Exegesis of the Bible"},"content":{"rendered":"

[For the entire article, of which this is only the last few pages, see John C. Reeves, “Scriptural Authority in Early Judaism,” in\u00a0Living Traditions of the Bible: Scripture in Jewish, Christian, and Muslim Practice<\/em>\u00a0(ed. James E. Bowley; St. Louis: Chalice Press, 1999), 63-84].
\nIn order to illustrate some of the ways whereby the Sages interact with a literary corpus that has finally achieved \u2018canonical\u2019 status; i.e., the Bible, a few words should be said about the exegetical process termed \u2018midrash.\u2019 The Hebrew word \u2018midrash,\u2019 often mislabeled a distinct literary genre, is better understood as a type of interpretative \u2018activity\u2019\u2014the English word \u2018exposition\u2019 perhaps best captures its essential meaning. There are, broadly speaking, two kinds of midrash: (1) midrash halakhah, or halakhic midrash, wherein explicit precepts or guidelines for conducting one\u2019s life in accordance with God\u2019s mandates are deduced from biblical discourse; and (2) midrash haggadah, or haggadic (or aggadic) midrash, wherein explanatory comments, expansive additions, illustrative anecdotes, and legendary stories are generated from what are perceived to be pregnant, yet silent, aspects of the biblical text. Common to both categories of midrashic activity\u2014halakhic and haggadic\u2014is its bibliocentric basis: midrash does not transpire in a textual vacuum; the Bible always serves as the point of origin or the ultimate court of appeal for midrashic formulation and argumentation. Hence midrash necessarily presupposes the concept of an authoritative text.<\/p>\n

Some actual examples of how midrash \u2018works\u2019 may prove useful here. An excellent illustration of halakhic midrash occurs in the initial discussions of the Mishnah in tractate\u00a0Berakhot<\/i>\u00a0regarding the mechanics of prayer, a topic upon which the Bible provides almost no guidance, even though it is a form of pious behavior clearly valued by God. In\u00a0m. Ber<\/i>. 1:3, we read: \u2018The School of Shammai taught that everyone should stretch out (prone) and recite (the\u00a0Shema<\/i>) in the evening, but should stand (and recite the\u00a0Shema<\/i>) in the morning, for Scripture says: \u2018in your lying down and in your rising up\u2019 (Deut 6:7).\u2019 Since the Bible refers to these two bodily postures in the very portion of Scripture which serves as the first part of the\u00a0Shema<\/i>\u00a0recitation, the School of Shammai concluded that the Bible was hinting how the recitation was to be physically performed: one assumed a prone position in the evening (\u2018in your lying down\u2019) and an upright stance in the morning (\u2018in your rising up\u2019). A behavioral norm is thereby deduced from the literal wording of the biblical text.<\/p>\n

The very same mishnah demonstrates however that the Shammaite deduction is in fact flawed: \u2018The School of Hillel responded, (If your interpretative logic is followed), everyone may recite (the\u00a0Shema<\/i>) in whatever posture (lit. \u2018way\u2019) they happen to be in, for (the same) Scripture says, “in your proceeding on the way” (Deut 6:7).\u2019 In other words, if at least two phrases of the referenced clause in the verse signify the physical posture to be assumed when engaging in the recitation, it is reasonable to conclude that the other syntactic components of that clause (\u2018while you sit in your house and during your proceeding on the way\u2019) also encode a similar message. But the messages are in fact contradictory\u2014therefore the opinion of the School of Shammai must in this instance be wrong. \u2018If so,\u2019 the mishnah continues, \u2018why would the Bible use the language of “in your lying down” and “in your rising up”? (It actually means)\u00a0at the time<\/i>\u00a0of your lying down, and\u00a0at the time<\/i>\u00a0of your rising up.\u2019 The Shammaite attempt to generate halakhic midrash from this verse, although undermined at the level of an overly literal understanding, is in fact affirmed by the Hillelites. The verse, however, does not teach about bodily posture, but instead uses this language metaphorically to serve simply as temporal markers for the occasions of the\u00a0Shema<\/i>\u2019s recitation\u2014at the time one normally goes to bed, and at the time one normally gets up.<\/p>\n

Haggadic midrash, like halakhic midrash, also displays a heightened sensitivity to the various interpretational nuances of the biblical text. The goal of haggadic midrash, however, is not the derivation of behavioral guidelines; rather, it seeks to probe certain intriguing aspects of the biblical text in order to uncover hidden cultural \u2018data.\u2019 For example, in\u00a0b. Hag.<\/i>\u00a012a we read: \u2018Why (did God name the firmament) “heavens” (\u0161amayim<\/i>; see Gen 1:8)? R. Jose bar Hanina taught “(the word\u00a0\u0161amayim<\/i>\u00a0means) for there (\u0161am<\/i>) was water (mayim<\/i>).”\u2019 According to this Sage, God\u2019s phonetic articulation of the word for \u2018heavens\u2019 embeds within it the biblical teaching regarding its original function; viz., to serve as a barrier for separating and restraining the primeval chaos-waters (Gen 1:6). The same source continues: \u2018A\u00a0baraita<\/i>\u00a0teaches that the Holy One, blessed be He, brought fire (e\u0161<\/i>) and water (mayim<\/i>) and mixed them together and thereby made the firmament.\u2019 This is an alternative haggadic explanation for the vocable \u2018heavens,\u2019 observing that the primal elements from which the \u2018heavens\u2019 were apparently made (fire and water) are still visible as separate vocalic components of the divine designation (Gen 1:8: \u2018and God named the firmament “\u0161amayim<\/i>“\u2019). According to this latter midrash, a careful study of God\u2019s language, as recorded in the Written Torah, may possibly shed unexpected light upon the elemental structure of the created order, a point further underscored by God\u2019s very use of the spoken word to fabricate the physical universe (Genesis 1\u00a0passim<\/i>).<\/p>\n

A lengthier example of haggadic midrash can be illustrated from the\u00a0Mekhilta de R. Ishmael<\/i>, a Tannaitic midrash keyed to a large portion of the biblical book of Exodus. Therein we read: \u2018R. Nathan taught: From where (i.e., from what Scriptural passage) can one learn that God showed Abraham our ancestor (the future events of) Gehenna, the revelation of the Torah, and the splitting of the Sea of Reeds? Scripture states: “when the sun set and it was very dark, there appeared a smoking\u00a0oven<\/i>\u00a0\u2026” (Gen 15:17)\u2014this was Gehenna, for Scripture confirms: “(the Lord) has an\u00a0oven<\/i>\u00a0in Jerusalem” (Isa 31:9; cf. 30:33)\u2014”\u2026 and a flaming\u00a0torch<\/i>\u00a0\u2026” (Gen 15:17)\u2014this was the revelation of the Torah, for Scripture confirms: “all the people witnessed the thunderings and the\u00a0torches<\/i>” (Exod 20:15)\u2014”\u2026 which passed between those\u00a0pieces<\/i>” (Gen 15:17)\u2014this was the miracle at the Sea of Reeds, for Scripture confirms: “who split the Sea of Reeds into\u00a0pieces<\/i>” (Ps 136:13). He (also) showed him the Temple and the sacrificial service, as Scripture indicates: “He (God) answered, Bring me a three-year old heifer, a three-year old she-goat, a three-year old ram, etc.” (Gen 15:9). He (also) showed him the four empires who were destined to enslave his descendants, for Scripture says: “As the sun was setting, a deep sleep fell upon Abram, and a\u00a0great dark dread fell<\/i>\u00a0upon him” (Gen 15:12). “Dread”\u2014this is the empire of Babylon; “dark”\u2014this is the empire of the Medes (and Persians); “great”\u2014this is the empire of the Greeks; “fell”\u2014this is the fourth empire, wicked Rome. But there are some who reverse the interpretation: “fell”\u2014this is the empire of Babylon, for it is written “Fallen<\/i>\u00a0is Babylon” (Isa 21:9); “great”\u2014this is the empire of the Medes (and Persians), for it is written “King Ahasuerus\u00a0made great<\/i>\u00a0(Haman)” (Esth 3:1); “dark”\u2014this is the empire of the Greeks, for they darkened the eyes of Israel with fasting; “dread”\u2014this is the fourth kingdom, for Scripture says “fearsome and\u00a0dreadful<\/i>\u00a0and very powerful” (Dan 7:7).\u2019<\/p>\n

This passage succinctly illustrates the primary way by which the Sages extracted additional levels of meaning from what was ostensibly a straightforward narrative recountal of the cementing of Abraham\u2019s covenantal relationship with God, the so-called \u2018covenant of the pieces\u2019 (Genesis 15). As the ceremony unfolds in its biblical telling, Abraham falls into a trance, wherein God reveals to the patriarch the future Egyptian subjection and eventual liberation from that bondage of his descendants (Gen 15:13-16). But just how much of the future did God actually display before Abraham? Surely He did not limit Himself to just the Exodus experience? Since He revealed to Abraham the event of the Exodus, is it not reasonable to assume that He would also reveal His miraculous acts associated with that event, especially the crossing of the Sea and the gift of the Torah? And would God not also show Abraham the eventual fate of those who rejected this gift; namely, the fires of Gehenna? Would God not show the ancestor of Israel the glories of the future Temple on Zion? And if the Egyptian oppression was explicitly signaled, a misfortune that transpires while Israel is absent from her Land, what about the other equally grievous experiences of subjection and exploitation that Israel was destined to endure while dwelling in her promised inheritance when she would be ruled by successive world empires? The quoted midrash demonstrates that such \u2018cultural data\u2019 is indeed encoded within the biblical text of Genesis 15, provided the reader possesses the biblical literacy and exegetical ingenuity required to detect it. Certain terms and locutions can be correlated with identical or analogous expressions in the other biblical books to establish a conceptual identification. In other words, an essential presupposition of midrash is the notion that biblical terminology is never arbitrary; it is deliberately polyvalent and consciously intertextual. Any biblical book can be used to interpret any other biblical book, regardless of age, genre, or authorial intention.<\/p>\n

The examples of midrash provided above thus demonstrate that rabbinic midrash, generally speaking, is an \u2018expositional\u2019 enterprise: there is normally a clear internal distinction made between the text being exposited (the Bible) and the exposition itself (the midrash). This holds true even for later midrashic compilations that appear at first glance to be \u2018compositional\u2019 enterprises\u2014works like\u00a0Pirqe de-Rabbi Eli\u2018ezer<\/i>\u00a0or\u00a0Sefer ha-Yashar<\/i>, whose flowing narrative styles exhibit a relatively seamless movement between canonical text and midrash, but without casting suspicion upon the primacy of the canonical Scriptures. This sort of narrative structure may be indebted in part to that of the Targum, the expansive Aramaic rendition of the biblical text, particularly as exhibited among the so-called Palestinian versions such as\u00a0Pseudo-Jonathan<\/i>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

[For the entire article, of which this is only the last few pages, see John C. Reeves, “Scriptural Authority in Early Judaism,” in\u00a0Living Traditions of the Bible: Scripture in Jewish, Christian, and Muslim Practice\u00a0(ed. James E. Bowley; St. Louis: Chalice Press, 1999), 63-84]. In order to illustrate some of the ways whereby the Sages interact […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":454,"featured_media":0,"parent":522,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","template":"","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-536","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/P3kl1F-8E","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/pages.charlotte.edu\/john-reeves\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/536","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/pages.charlotte.edu\/john-reeves\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/pages.charlotte.edu\/john-reeves\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pages.charlotte.edu\/john-reeves\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/454"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pages.charlotte.edu\/john-reeves\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=536"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/pages.charlotte.edu\/john-reeves\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/536\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1731,"href":"https:\/\/pages.charlotte.edu\/john-reeves\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/536\/revisions\/1731"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pages.charlotte.edu\/john-reeves\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/522"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/pages.charlotte.edu\/john-reeves\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=536"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}