My brothers original post raised two questions regarding applying literary analysis to Tanakh. 1) What is the value of form without content? 2) Does the approach use criteria for application or does it lend itself to misuse? As far as I can tell, respondents addressed the first question and not the second.
One example of the second question relates to intertextuality, the attempt to find allusions to one biblical passage in another. Any method relying on parallel phrases must proceed with caution; indeed, Hazal say that a scholar can not make up a gezerah shava without a tradition. Finding common wording does not prove a connection since the words may simply be quite frequent or the only Hebrew way to say something. Only unusual wording or a particular phraseology when another would have sufficed helps establish a connection. Prof. Gabi Cohn presents this issue well in his chapter on Esther and Yosef in Iyyunim beHamesh haMegilot. The fact that both stories say "ahar ha-devarim ha-eleh" proves nothing. Other linguistic parallels and the sheer number of them make the comparison between these two stories more convincing.
The Esther story may illustrate potential misuse of the method. According to various scholars (cited by G. Cohn, p. 313), Megillat Esther parallels Yosef, Yonah, Daniel, Bat Sheva, kerem Navot, and the exodus from Egypt. Either we have a remarkable author who worked six different biblical allusions into his creation or some scholars are too quick to find parallels.
Let us turn to the question of a classical mefarshim based shiur versus the new school of literary analysis which includes the approaches popularized in our community by R. Mordechai Breuer and, yibbadelu lehayyim, R. Yoel ben Nun, R. Yaakov Medan and R. Menachem Liebtag. While the two approaches need not be mutually exclusive, I would like to offer reasons to incline towards the former. Of course, preferring Ramban and Seforno does not equal denying the significant contribution of these outstanding contemporary Tanakh teachers.
1) Focusing on the traditional commentaries is a form of quality control. Ibn Ezra and Rashbam have stood the test of time while the jury is out on more novel suggestions.
2) The traditional commentaries are often a repository of important hashkafic ideas. Ramban on Kedoshim tihiyu reflects a good example. Other examples include debates between Ibn Ezra and Rashi about the truth of magic and between Ramban and Abravanel about the legitimacy of Yosef treating his brothers harshly in order to fulfill a dream. Rooting these discussions in the classical commentaries keeps us, to borrow some phrases from C. S. Lewis, in touch with sound doctrine while avoiding the phantom called my religion.
3) Debbie Lifschitzs post raised the question of student textual abilities. Many of our students lack the Hebrew skills required to scan larger chunks of text and lack the knowledge of the biblical text necessary to come up with their own parallels. This causes two interesting results. In a shiur based on chiasmus or intertextuality, the students cannot come up with their own alternate suggestions; they can only be led to the teachers conclusion. Conversely, a mefarshim shiur that focuses more narrowly on a single verse or a shorter series of verses enables the students to make a real contribution. Furthermore, the very act of contrasting Rashi and Ramban already conveys the validity of multiple approaches. An ironic conclusion emerges. The conservative method of reading classical commentaries generates more student creativity and a more pluralistic atmosphere than the modern approach of literary analysis.
Yitzchak Blau
Rosh Kollel
Yeshivat Shvilei Hatorah
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/27/2010 11:33PM by mlb.
