Bird by Bird, one third
Nov. 5th, 2003 04:14 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
magidLast night I went to the third (of nine) class in Midrash Vayikra [1]. So far, we have looked at two midrashim, both focused on the use of the word 'vayikra' at the beginning of the first pasuk [2].
In the first (1:7), it discusses why the first phrase is necessary to the pasuk, and links it back to the end of Shmot [3], where Moshe has made the mishkan [4] exactly as commanded. And now, beginning the next book, his reward is to be called to the mishkan for communication with the Divine. There are proof texts brought, and a mashal [5] to a king who has his servant build a palace.
In the second (1:13), there is a discussion of Jewish v. non-Jewish prophecy. There are a lot of different opinions, brought pairwise (R. Illai bar Menahem says X, while R. Yossi says Y), though there are many different opinions through the course of the midrash, ranging from neutral to pretty negative on non-Jewish prophecy. Again, there are proof texts (some more obviously relevant than others), which we looked at in context each time, and a number of mashals (yes, I'm mashing languages here), again with kings and their subjects, in differing relations. As we worked our way through, I was fascinated to see how the teacher brought us to see how one mashal actually brought up subversive ideas.
More specifically, there is the last pair of opinions brought. R. Hanina bar Papa uses the mashal of a king who has a curtain (in his throne room, or some such place), which he pulls aside for a friend when they speak so the king can see his face, but leaves down when speaking with others so they cannot see him. So in this paradigm, both the Jewish and non-Jewish prophets can get audiences, but it's not as close a relationship.
On the other hand, the rabbis (an unspecified crowd) bring the mashal of a king who has a wife and a concubine. When he goes to visit the wife, he goes openly, but when he goes to visit the concubine, he does so in secret (Note: at this time, it was still the halacha [6] that kings could have concubines, but mores were changing enough that the rabbis obviously saw this as less than ideal.). While it's obvious that this shows a less positive view of non-Jewish prophecy, it's also interesting how it views God, who goes out to visit rather than attending his subjects, and ends up skulking around to visit his concubine, as if there's something not quite proper. The teacher suggested that this might be seen as the rabbis criticizing God for prophesying to others, a variation on the faithless wife imagery commonly used to show Israel's sins.
I'm still bothered by the idea that it was so important to the rabbis to downgrade non-Jewish prophecy, though. It feels a bit... insecure, or something. Definitely not multicultural. We discussed the tendency to lionize/demonize, and I heard echoes of discussion in Lies My Teacher Told Me, about the teaching of American history.
What I'm finding interesting is how the teacher is taking apart the midrash, showing the structure inside. I don't think it's particularly new to me, but having it taught explicitly, rather than on the way to somewhere else, is. We talked about the use of proof texts, and one woman brought other texts to show that the proof texts used in our case didn't necessarily hold in others, which lead to a discussion of proof. I'm used to scientific proof, where a theory has to cover all contingencies; if one case doesn't work, then the theory is not complete, or not good, and needs further work. The teacher said that midrash has a different heuristic, which doesn't necessarily care about all other examples in Humash or Tanach [7], but is there to make a particular point.
I'm looking forward to the upcoming classes, though I suspect we'll end the course having covered less material than the teacher had planned; we're already a midrash behind where she thought we'd be...
[1]Here's a general definition of midrash. Vayikra is the Hebrew name for Leviticus.
[2] verse
[3] Exodus
[4] tabernacle
[5] parable
[6] law
[7] Humash = five books of Moses; Tanach = Humash + Prophets + Writings
In the first (1:7), it discusses why the first phrase is necessary to the pasuk, and links it back to the end of Shmot [3], where Moshe has made the mishkan [4] exactly as commanded. And now, beginning the next book, his reward is to be called to the mishkan for communication with the Divine. There are proof texts brought, and a mashal [5] to a king who has his servant build a palace.
In the second (1:13), there is a discussion of Jewish v. non-Jewish prophecy. There are a lot of different opinions, brought pairwise (R. Illai bar Menahem says X, while R. Yossi says Y), though there are many different opinions through the course of the midrash, ranging from neutral to pretty negative on non-Jewish prophecy. Again, there are proof texts (some more obviously relevant than others), which we looked at in context each time, and a number of mashals (yes, I'm mashing languages here), again with kings and their subjects, in differing relations. As we worked our way through, I was fascinated to see how the teacher brought us to see how one mashal actually brought up subversive ideas.
More specifically, there is the last pair of opinions brought. R. Hanina bar Papa uses the mashal of a king who has a curtain (in his throne room, or some such place), which he pulls aside for a friend when they speak so the king can see his face, but leaves down when speaking with others so they cannot see him. So in this paradigm, both the Jewish and non-Jewish prophets can get audiences, but it's not as close a relationship.
On the other hand, the rabbis (an unspecified crowd) bring the mashal of a king who has a wife and a concubine. When he goes to visit the wife, he goes openly, but when he goes to visit the concubine, he does so in secret (Note: at this time, it was still the halacha [6] that kings could have concubines, but mores were changing enough that the rabbis obviously saw this as less than ideal.). While it's obvious that this shows a less positive view of non-Jewish prophecy, it's also interesting how it views God, who goes out to visit rather than attending his subjects, and ends up skulking around to visit his concubine, as if there's something not quite proper. The teacher suggested that this might be seen as the rabbis criticizing God for prophesying to others, a variation on the faithless wife imagery commonly used to show Israel's sins.
I'm still bothered by the idea that it was so important to the rabbis to downgrade non-Jewish prophecy, though. It feels a bit... insecure, or something. Definitely not multicultural. We discussed the tendency to lionize/demonize, and I heard echoes of discussion in Lies My Teacher Told Me, about the teaching of American history.
What I'm finding interesting is how the teacher is taking apart the midrash, showing the structure inside. I don't think it's particularly new to me, but having it taught explicitly, rather than on the way to somewhere else, is. We talked about the use of proof texts, and one woman brought other texts to show that the proof texts used in our case didn't necessarily hold in others, which lead to a discussion of proof. I'm used to scientific proof, where a theory has to cover all contingencies; if one case doesn't work, then the theory is not complete, or not good, and needs further work. The teacher said that midrash has a different heuristic, which doesn't necessarily care about all other examples in Humash or Tanach [7], but is there to make a particular point.
I'm looking forward to the upcoming classes, though I suspect we'll end the course having covered less material than the teacher had planned; we're already a midrash behind where she thought we'd be...
[1]Here's a general definition of midrash. Vayikra is the Hebrew name for Leviticus.
[2] verse
[3] Exodus
[4] tabernacle
[5] parable
[6] law
[7] Humash = five books of Moses; Tanach = Humash + Prophets + Writings
class summary
Date: 2003-11-15 03:05 pm (UTC)