I have been thoroughly enjoying the many contributions regarding literary analysis of Tanakh and would like to respond to several of them.
1) Daniel Wolf is certainly correct that no method guarantees quality control. The critical element in education is good teachers excited about their material. Nonetheless, various methods do lend themselves to different advantages and shortcomings.
2) Aryeh Klapper, in a very interesting post, overstates the case when he says many of these rishonim were at best peripheral to the tradition for hundreds of years, until their rediscovery over the past two centuries. Rabbinic thinkers such as Ran and Shelah interact with Ibn Ezras thought long before modernity. The history of printed bibles reveals that these commentaries were frequently included. Ibn Ezra was a regular staple and Seforno was introduced in 1724. Radak on Bereishit was not usually included but Radak and Ralbag on Nakh were. Nor was Rambans commentary on the Torah peripheral to the tradition. (For a historical survey, see Barry Levys fine article in Tradition Summer 1991). These commentaries were part of Torah discourse long before Nechama Lebowitz came along. Perhaps Ayrehs claim refers to Bekhor Shor.
3) Aryeh also overstates the case when he writes But here we need to recognize that much of what the rishonim wrote, and even much of the subset of their writing that we currently possess, has not actually stood the test of time. They interpret chumash in light of astrology, Aristotelian philosophy, medieval medicine and aesthetics, and so on and so forth. Even if we remove these elements from Ibn Ezra, a good deal of profound commentary remains. Furthermore, such elements play a more muted role in Rashbam and Rambans commentaries. Finally, not all of medieval philosophical thought is outdated and some of it can be translated into contemporary categories.
4) I also think Aryeh focuses too much on the need for fully novel insights when he worries that the creative element has run out of both the rishonim method and the literary method. Hiddushei Torah are wonderful and important but not every high school Humash class requires a major innovation. In this context, Shalom Carmy has made an important distinction between creativity and originality. Understanding a Ramban and appreciating its depth can be a creative gesture even when we do not come up with an unprecedented idea. Moreover, great texts often reward repeated reading precisely because there are layers of understanding waiting to be uncovered.
5) Yosef Goldberg argues that introducing rishonim crates greater language difficulties for our students. He is correct but I envision involving the students before turning to the rishonim. Have the students read Bemidbar 20: 1-13 and ask them to identify Moshes sin. They will be able to come up with different possibilities and the teacher can then turn to commentaries to enhance the analysis. On the other hand, if the opening question asks the students what other stories are alluded to, they frequently lack the capacity for suggesting their own answers.
6) Further investigation reveals scholarly claims that Esther is parallel to Sarah, the war with Amalek, and Yehoyakhin in addition to Yosef, Yonah, Daniel, the exodus, Bat Sheva and kerem Navot. Some of the parallels may well be true but the sheer number of them suggests some readers are too quick to use intertextuality. For example, the parallel to Sarah is based on the following. 1) The number 127 appears in both stories. 2) Both Esther and Sarah are described as pretty. 3) Both are taken by a monarch. It is not surprising that two different tyrants would be interested in an attractive woman and the common number of 127 could simply be a coincidence. This is not enough evidence for a literary parallel.
7) Jeremiah Unterman mentions Milgroms analysis of kashrut. I am not sure this is relevant to the conversation since my brothers original post focused on intertextuality, chiasmus, leitvort, and breaking up chapter into smaller units, narrative techniques less central to Milgroms analysis of kashrut. Of course, if Milgroms commentary provides hashkafic insight, that is a good thing. Nonetheless, Ibn Ezra and Ramban are more significant sources of Jewish theological reflection.
Yitzchak Blau
