I'd like to continue my discussion with Aryeh Klapper, with a couple of comments. I don't think we're far apart, but there are a couple of different nuances, which I think are important to note and reflect upon.
In response to my argument that the literary method is a catch-all term for a variety of reading strategies, Aryeh observes quite cogently that this should not be understood as a free-for-all where a teacher - or scholar - can choose whatever particular method strikes his or her fancy. I am quite far removed from such postmodernist or radical reader-response theories as that, and I fully concur.
Aryeh then continues with the observation that commitment to "the" literary method then begs the question as to "the Jewish and literary-theoretical commitments that constrain and enable Jewish reading". I'm not sure whether I'm simply suggesting a simple answer to his complicated question, or demurring to some extent from the way he has framed the question, but I understand all the "literary" approaches (with the exception of some postmodern schools) to share one underlying theme: that the text is replete with strategies and techniques for conveying rich and powerful meanings, and that interpretation and teaching should focus heavily (not necessarily exclusively) on those techniques and their meanings. To my mind, there are "literary theoretical" considerations which will guide the disciplined reader towards the appropriate reading techniques, but there is nothing specifically Jewish that "constrains" or "enables" use of this tool. The specifically Jewish component of the reading will come in, to my mind, at three points:
(a) Since this text was composed as "Jewish" (actually - Israelite), we can expect its contours and its messages to resonate with our Jewish identity, despite whatever differences and gaps may separate us from the world and world-view expressed in the text.
(b) Discovering the textual phenomena should utilize criteria that are not culturally or religiously specific, but according meaning (and especially what E.D. Hirsch termed "significance"
to them will always involve making use of the beliefs, world-view, and values to which the reader subscribes. Hence, as committed Jews, our interpretations will always be informed by our Jewishness.
(c) Inasmuch as we are committed to Jewish tradition and revere our great predecessors, our literary readings will always be augmented with references to and dialogue with interpretations from our "classic" parshanut, from Hazal on.
My second comment refers to Aryeh's clarifications regarding "reclaiming Hazal". He and I both agree that the more fanciful aspects of midrashic reading cannot serve as a model for contemporary readers and students. However, he works hard to establish that Hazal do in fact have "methodologies" of reading, including more peshat-oriented aspects, which can serve as an example for contemporary readers. I don't want to get into the semantics as to whether the approaches of different tannaim or amoraim towards the biblical text can be properly termed "methodologies". Even it we grant the term, it seems to me that what we understand as peshat, namely systematic adherence to meanings that conform to dictionary meaning and context, is not heavily in evidence in the corpus of Hazal and is not best exemplified by the readings that we find there. Aryeh claims I "conflate" Hazal with midrash, which presupposes that somewhere in the writings of Hazal one can find a body of non-midrashic readings - where? Yes, we can find scattered readings which conform entirely to peshat, and quite a few more which correspond to peshat to a great extent. But there is no systematic division in Hazal between the two. The fact that, with hard work, a reader can ferret out of many midrashic readings, which include "concretization" and "application", a substratum of peshat, hardly presents these midrashic readings as a model which can be emulated by the contemporary reader.
I want to reiterate that I am all in favor of studying midrashic readings, both (selectively) as a parshanut tool and as a study in its own right. Extensive and intensive study of midrash may indeed serve as a shining example of how Jewish tradition has read and reworked the Tanakh text to address both time-bound and perennial issues. But it is not an example which the student can replicate; he can use it as a source of inspiration, but must rework it to conform to contemporary standards of what it means to understand a text.
Avie Walfish
