Intertextuality and the Reading of Midrash by Daniel Boyarin Page A
Authors: Daniel Boyarin
Ads: Link
the apparently unmotivated exceptionality of the action of a character in one of a series of similar situations constitutes a gap which the midrash reads. The exegetical context is the unusual statement, "And Moses removed Israel from the Red Sea" [Exod: 15:22]. Since all through the Torah the travels of the Israelites were directly commanded by God, our verse seems to contradict what has gone before, thereby setting up a gap which calls for comment. The midrash offers a series of interpretations of this verse:
R. Yehoshua says, This journey Israel made by the word of Moses. All of the other journeys were by none but the word of the Lord, as it is said, "By the word of the Lord they camped, and by the word of the Lord, they
traveled," but this journey was by none but the word of Moses. Therefore, it says, "And Moses removed Israel."
(2) R. Eliezer says, By the word of the Almighty they journeyed, for we have found in one place, in two and in three, that they journeyed not but by word of the Almighty.
(2a) What is then the significance of saying [ ma talmud lomar ], "And Moses removed Israel," but to make known Israel's merit, for when Moses says to them, "Arise and go!" they did not say, "How shall we go out into the desert without any victuals for the way,'' but they had faith and went after Moses. Of them it is said explicitly in the tradition, 11 ''Go and call in the ears of Jerusalem, saying, I have remembered for you the righteousness of your youth, your going after Me in the desert" [Jer. 2:2].
In paragraph (1), we find R. Yehoshua insisting, as he does regularly in the Mekilta, 12 on a rigorously literal reading. In spite of the fact that at every other point in the narrative of the Torah, the People are represented as being led by God in their journeys, since it says here that "Moses removed" them, this journey must have been at the prophet's instigation, and not God's. It is indeed remarkable that R. Yehoshua proposes no explanation for the sui generis character of this particular journey, only emphasizing the more his commitment to literalism. In paragraph (2), R. Eliezer argues for a nonliteral reading of our verse. His reasoning is that, since everywhere else in the Torah we find that the journeys were by the instigation of God and since there seems to be no reason for this one to have been exceptional, we must assume it to have been the same. Now, this is followed by an expansion of the narrative (2a) to explain the apparent statement that it was Moses who led the people this time. The reading suggests that, although it was indeed God who had proposed this journey as he did all the others, it was, after all, Moses who gave the immediate order which the people obeyed without question, even entering without provisions into a trackless waste on the strength of their trust in Moses. This story is then supported by the verse from Jeremiah which indicates that in the desert, the relationship of GOd and the people was an ideal one, a new bride unquestioningly trusting her groom and following Him, even in the wilderness.
This passage is followed by a text that has caused a great deal of difficulty for the commentators on the Mekilta.
(2b) And so we have found that their journey returned back on itself three stations, as it is said, "And they traveled from PiHahirot and went through the sea, and they traveled from Mara and came to Elim, and they traveled from Elim and camped on the Red Sea" [Num. 33:8–10].
The text indicates that the children of Israel, after having lek the Red Sea and traveled for a time, returned to the place whence they came. The internal content of this comment is relatively simple. A passage from Numbers in which
Israel's journeys are rehearsed is cited. In that passage it is stated that after crossing the sea, the people journeyed to Mara and thence to Elim and from Elim back to the shores of the sea, which is taken to mean, back to the same point from which they embarked. They have
R. Yehoshua says, This journey Israel made by the word of Moses. All of the other journeys were by none but the word of the Lord, as it is said, "By the word of the Lord they camped, and by the word of the Lord, they
traveled," but this journey was by none but the word of Moses. Therefore, it says, "And Moses removed Israel."
(2) R. Eliezer says, By the word of the Almighty they journeyed, for we have found in one place, in two and in three, that they journeyed not but by word of the Almighty.
(2a) What is then the significance of saying [ ma talmud lomar ], "And Moses removed Israel," but to make known Israel's merit, for when Moses says to them, "Arise and go!" they did not say, "How shall we go out into the desert without any victuals for the way,'' but they had faith and went after Moses. Of them it is said explicitly in the tradition, 11 ''Go and call in the ears of Jerusalem, saying, I have remembered for you the righteousness of your youth, your going after Me in the desert" [Jer. 2:2].
In paragraph (1), we find R. Yehoshua insisting, as he does regularly in the Mekilta, 12 on a rigorously literal reading. In spite of the fact that at every other point in the narrative of the Torah, the People are represented as being led by God in their journeys, since it says here that "Moses removed" them, this journey must have been at the prophet's instigation, and not God's. It is indeed remarkable that R. Yehoshua proposes no explanation for the sui generis character of this particular journey, only emphasizing the more his commitment to literalism. In paragraph (2), R. Eliezer argues for a nonliteral reading of our verse. His reasoning is that, since everywhere else in the Torah we find that the journeys were by the instigation of God and since there seems to be no reason for this one to have been exceptional, we must assume it to have been the same. Now, this is followed by an expansion of the narrative (2a) to explain the apparent statement that it was Moses who led the people this time. The reading suggests that, although it was indeed God who had proposed this journey as he did all the others, it was, after all, Moses who gave the immediate order which the people obeyed without question, even entering without provisions into a trackless waste on the strength of their trust in Moses. This story is then supported by the verse from Jeremiah which indicates that in the desert, the relationship of GOd and the people was an ideal one, a new bride unquestioningly trusting her groom and following Him, even in the wilderness.
This passage is followed by a text that has caused a great deal of difficulty for the commentators on the Mekilta.
(2b) And so we have found that their journey returned back on itself three stations, as it is said, "And they traveled from PiHahirot and went through the sea, and they traveled from Mara and came to Elim, and they traveled from Elim and camped on the Red Sea" [Num. 33:8–10].
The text indicates that the children of Israel, after having lek the Red Sea and traveled for a time, returned to the place whence they came. The internal content of this comment is relatively simple. A passage from Numbers in which
Israel's journeys are rehearsed is cited. In that passage it is stated that after crossing the sea, the people journeyed to Mara and thence to Elim and from Elim back to the shores of the sea, which is taken to mean, back to the same point from which they embarked. They have
Similar Books
