I thank Ari Silbermann for his comments in trying to interpret what I said. Just to clarify: it is unquestionably true that the medieval meforshim who focused on pshat took the text very seriously and were at least partially motivated by the desire to explicate the true meaning of the text. Therefore, it is not surprising that, in their attempts to understand the text, they would occasionally arrive at a conclusion which could be met through modern literary analysis. However, these rishonim often were not experts in Hebrew linguistics, and certainly did not have a "modern" advanced understanding of either poetics or rhetoric, nor did they have a method (agreed upon or otherwise) for analyzing the text. Nonetheless, their intelligence and diligence result frequently in brilliant and humbling insights. I definitely identify with Moshe Greenberg, z"l, during a presentation at an academic conference that I co-sponsored about 27 years ago. He referred to an interpretation by Ramban and said, "Ramban, under whose feet I am dirt..."
In response to Rabbi Yitzchak Blau, Chazal mentioned that a scholar cannot make up a gezerah shavah in the case of LEGAL application, as opposed to simply commenting on the text. At the same time, he is certainly correct that one must go beyond the simple usage of common language to show intertextuality. The fact that a number of modern authors have tried to show a connection between Esther and Yosef, Yonah, Daniel, Batsheva, Navot's vineyard, and the Exodus does not mean that some of these parallels do not exist. Indeed, Rabbi Blau acknowledges the parallel with Yosef (and Gabi Cohn's work is, indeed, superior). He might be surprised to know that parallels of Esther with the beginning of 1 Kings and Daniel are quite detailed. In fact, one can make the case that the author of Esther is purposely trying to show the connection of that story with numerous Biblical episodes. "Why?" is another, and very important, question, and any shiur which deals with intertextuality needs to respond to that question. In a classroom the presence of intertextuality should give rise to a lively student discussion about WHY the text is referencing another. Indeed, any notice of a particular form or specific allusions should give rise to student discussion.
Rabbi Blau is, again, certainly correct that meforshim should be studied and that their hashkafic comments are very important. However, solid literary analysis can give rise to conclusions that deepen and illuminate the Tanakh's hashkafot, and even provide new understandings, such as Jacob Milgrom's analysis of the Biblical laws of kashrut as an ethical system (and a great many other examples).
In short, yes, we are "dwarfs that stand on the shoulders of giants" (famously said by Isaac Newton, but originating with Bernard of Chartres, and based on a Greek myth), but we are able to see farther - unless, of course, we are not willing to learn how to use the telescope.
Jeremiah Unterman
