2009
ISSUE 72 | 77
EXCERPTS OF NEW BOOKS BY HUC-JIR FACULTY | EXCERPTS OF NEW BOOKS BY HUC-JIR FACULTY
eral examples of rabbinic hermeneutics,
which in this study are methodologies of
interpretation applied by the Rabbis to
the texts they regarded as scriptural. In
rabbinic praxis, hermeneutics and
midrash
go hand in hand. The first generally pro-
duces the second.
Midrash
is by definition a
form of interpretation of Scripture that goes
beyond the text’s most obvious meaning. In-
deed, the Hebrew root of the word (d-r-S)
means “to seek, to search,” and clearly one
need not search for that which is obvious
and immediately accessible. This study, then,
is on one level a standard academic rabbinics
exploration of six interpretational methods:
“
even though there is no proof for this mat-
ter, there is a prooftext for it”
(‘
af `al pi she-en
r’aiyah la-davar, zekher la-davar),
“
the reso-
lution of two contradictory verses”
(
shenei
ketuvim ha-makhishim zeh et zeh),
“
transfer-
ral of the rules of one pentateuchal rubric to
another”
(’
im ’eino `inyan),
“
two verses that
teach a single principle”
(
shenei ketuvim ’ein
melamedim),
“
two restrictions”
(
terei mi`utei),
and “these scriptural passages are necessary”
(
tzerikhi).
Consistent with that type of study, we an-
alyze developments in the form, logic, and
results of the interpretational methods under
analysis. If there is chronological development,
we chart it and try to account for it. Though
this aspect of the study is mainly directed to-
ward those in the field of historical-critical
rabbinics, I have tried to make it accessible to
those who are interested in the history of bib-
lical interpretation, the development of
rabbinic Judaism, or early rabbinic Jewish the-
ology, all of which are also among the major
concerns of this study.
In analyzing these
midrashic
methods, this
work attempts to chart the interface between
the rabbinic view of revelation and rabbinic
midrash.
I posit that because the
tannaim
con-
nected the issue of revelation and canonicity
primarily to the text of the Pentateuch, that
text was almost the exclusive source for their
halakhic midrash
.
Similarly, I hold that because
the early
amoraim
extended equal canonical
authority to the entire
TaNaKH,
they applied
halakhic midrash
to the entire scriptural canon.
Finally, because the late
amoraim
and
Babylon-
ian Talmud’s
redactors viewed rabbinic corpora
as divine revelation, they applied
midrashic
methods
mishnayyot
and
baraitot
as well.
Since, however, their tannaitic and amoraic
forbears’ legacy was for them equivalent to
Sinaitic
Torah,
their interpretations no longer
extended the borders of
halakhah
but only
maintained them.
As Martin Jaffee has proposed, the idea of
Oral
Torah
was hardly existent in the tannaitic
period, but it grew into a more defined ideol-
ogy because of the requirement in amoraic
rabbinic circles that a student study under a
teacher in order to become a recognized
Torah
scholar. I would now add to this view that by
the end of the period of the formation of the
Babylonian Talmud,
Oral
Torah
came to mean
the entire legacy of those Rabbis whose views
tradition had preserved. This rabbinic legacy,
along with Scripture, was deemed to have been
revealed by God and therefore to be canonical
and, ironically enough given the later rabbinic
emphasis on Oral
Torah,
“
scriptural.”
Levirate Marriage and the Family
in Ancient Judaism
Dvora E. Weisberg,
University Press of
New England, 2008
I
n this study, Weisberg uses levirate marriage
(
an institution that involves the union of a
man and the widow of his childless brother)
as described in biblical law and explicated in
rabbinic Judaism as a lens to examine the
status of women and attitudes toward marriage,
sexuality, and reproduction in early Jewish soci-
ety. With her discussion rooted in rabbinic
sources and commentary,Weisberg explores kin-
ship structure and descent, the relationship
between a family unit created through levirate
marriage and the extended family, and the roles
of individuals within the family. She also con-
siders the position of women, asking whether it
is through marriage or the bearing of children
that a woman becomes part of her husband's
family, and to what degree a married woman re-
mains part of her natal family. She argues that
rabbinic responses to levirate suggest that a
family is an evolving entity, one that can preserve
itself through realignment and redefinition.
To understand the constantly changing
nature of families, just flip through a photo
album. Begin by opening the album to a wed-
ding picture. Captured on the page is a newly
married couple, surrounded by parents and
siblings. Before the wedding, the parents of
the couple, together with their respective chil-
dren, constituted two separate families. Now,
those family units have been altered; each, ac-
cording to our understanding, has gained a
member. Moreover, the two original families’
relationship to each other has been trans-
formed; once unrelated, they are now each
other’s “in-laws.”
If we turn the pages forward to the cou-
ple’s twentieth anniversary, we will see more
changes. The couple now has children. Broth-
ers and sisters have married and may also have
children. Grandparents, aunts, and uncles
who were present at the wedding have died.
Young relatives of the couple have grown up.
It is not uncommon today to hear people
lament changes in the family. Families, they
claim, are not as close as they used to be. Fam-
ilies are also seen as increasingly unstable,
owing to rising rates of divorce and remar-
riage. In addition, definitions of family are
being challenged by an increase in same-sex
couples, blended families, open adoption, and
couples living together for extended periods
of time without marrying. But as our photo
album demonstrates, the family is by its very
nature a constantly changing entity. Individ-
ual families change, swelled by marriage,
