Jewish Literary Theory

From monstrouspossibility

Jump to: navigation, search

[edit] Jewish Literary Theory

Image:Www.encounterusa.com/images/ala-pic-rashi.jpg

Jewish Literary Theory begins with the term Midrash which comes from the Hebrew word dash, meaning to search for or investigate.

[1]

A Midrash is written by a Jewish scholar or Rabbi that attempts to 'fill in gaps' in the Torah or the Tanach (contains the Torah as well as two other texts Nev'im and Ketuv'im).

[2]

By gaps, I mean places where a story is left open to interpretation or where there is something that is particularly strange and unexplained. For example, Genesis 29:16-17 contains two of the only three physical descriptions in the entire Torah! Why do you think that that is? If you've come up with an answer, you've just written your first Midrash.

A Midrash can be compared to our modern day English Hermeneutics. The main difference is that a Midrash is EXCLUSIVE only to the Torah and Tanach and can not be written about any other texts.

And of course there are rules to be followed: [3]

Two of the most famous literary theorists of Judaism are Rabbi Rashi: [4] And Maimonides (also known as Rambam, the acronym for his full name Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon, which translates into Teacher Moses Son of Maimon): [5]

Additional Readings: [6] [7] [8]


[edit] Questions

Describe more fully the relationship/differences between hermeneutics and a Midrash.

Give examples of this approach to texts as applied to other literature - are there?

Is there an implicit theory of language/narrative/reading embedded here?

Consider these ideas in relation to the work of Jewish writers...? Consider the work of Edmond Jabes, who will read in a few weeks.

The rules and levels of the Jewish Hermeneutics (linked above) are fascinating. How does this approach to literature/meaning resemble/differ from other approaches?

What do you make of the seeming explicitness and exactness of the rules and the suggestion of metaphorical subtlety and the apparent, say, esoteric intricacy of the interpretive tradition?