Intertextuality and the Reading of Midrash by Daniel Boyarin Page B
Authors: Daniel Boyarin
Ads: Link
thus returned three stations: Elim to Marah to the sea.
The exegetical status of the comment is thus in itself clear; the question is, how does it function in this context? Several commentators, observing that returning to Egypt is a symbol of unfaithful and ungrateful desire on the part of the people—one that reappears several times in the desert wanderings—argue that this passage is cited as tacit evidence against R. Eliezer's reading. 13 Or alternatively, some claim that it is out of place and belongs later on, where the Jews are presented as having rebelled and wished to return to Egypt. 14 However, both of these interpretations ignore the structure of the paradigmatic midrash here. Since the following statement (2c, below) is clearly one in praise of the Jews for returning to honor and bury Aaron, and it is introduced by the formula, "similarly"—a topos of similarity in paradigmatic midrash—we must understand this one to be also praise and not blame. The philological solution of moving the text will not work either, because then again the paradigm would be broken. It is clear, therefore, that the text must stand as it is, and that the return motif is here cited as praise and not blame. 15
In order to understand this text we must recognize that it contains a double allusion to an earlier part of the Mekilta, that which precedes the account of the Red Sea crossing. We are informed there that God Himself, on one occasion, commanded the Israelites to retrace their steps: "Speak to the people of Israel, that they shall return and camp before PiHahirot" [Exod. 14:2], and in Exod. 14:4 we are told, " And so they did ." Now, the Mekilta, commenting on this latter verse, remarks: " And so they did : They said, Like it or not, we must follow BenAmram [Moses]." In other words: on this previous occasion, the people did not want to retrace their steps, but they did so, because Moses told them to. Now, since in our case we can prove (via the text in Numbers) that the Israelites returned again, we have evidence that this return, by analogy to the previous one, was also out of obedience to BenAmram. Hence, "And Moses removed them"!
The other allusion is even more explicit, in fact it is a quotation:
Rabbi says, Sufficient is the trust that they trusted in Me that for its sake I shall split the Sea for them, as it is said, "that they shall return and camp." . . . Others say, sufficient is the trust that they trusted in Me that for its sake I will split the sea for them, for they did not say to Moses, we have no victuals for the way, but they trusted and went after
Moses. Of them it is said explicitly in the tradition "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 short, the second opinion is the explanation of the merit of Israel in (2a) above, and it is associated textually with the other case of merit, namely the retracing of steps, which, as we have seen, was also out of faithful obedience to Moses! Now it is clear why a statement about the Israelites returning could be used as a support for their merit in trusting Moses blindly.
It is important that the role of the verse from Jeremiah be recognized. It has both metonymic and metaphoric aspects. On the one hand, it is a comment on the nature of the righteousness of the people in the desert, and as such it can legitimately be applied (legitimately even in modem hermeneutic theory) in several contexts as a comment or justification of a comment on the motivations of the narrative of this period. On the other hand, in both passages its use also generates the actual narrative, for it is precisely the "going after Me in the desert" which is being narrated. Moreover, even the point about the people not wondering where their food will come from is generated by this verse, as it concludes, "in a land in which nothing grows."
A similar case in which Israel gathered
The exegetical status of the comment is thus in itself clear; the question is, how does it function in this context? Several commentators, observing that returning to Egypt is a symbol of unfaithful and ungrateful desire on the part of the people—one that reappears several times in the desert wanderings—argue that this passage is cited as tacit evidence against R. Eliezer's reading. 13 Or alternatively, some claim that it is out of place and belongs later on, where the Jews are presented as having rebelled and wished to return to Egypt. 14 However, both of these interpretations ignore the structure of the paradigmatic midrash here. Since the following statement (2c, below) is clearly one in praise of the Jews for returning to honor and bury Aaron, and it is introduced by the formula, "similarly"—a topos of similarity in paradigmatic midrash—we must understand this one to be also praise and not blame. The philological solution of moving the text will not work either, because then again the paradigm would be broken. It is clear, therefore, that the text must stand as it is, and that the return motif is here cited as praise and not blame. 15
In order to understand this text we must recognize that it contains a double allusion to an earlier part of the Mekilta, that which precedes the account of the Red Sea crossing. We are informed there that God Himself, on one occasion, commanded the Israelites to retrace their steps: "Speak to the people of Israel, that they shall return and camp before PiHahirot" [Exod. 14:2], and in Exod. 14:4 we are told, " And so they did ." Now, the Mekilta, commenting on this latter verse, remarks: " And so they did : They said, Like it or not, we must follow BenAmram [Moses]." In other words: on this previous occasion, the people did not want to retrace their steps, but they did so, because Moses told them to. Now, since in our case we can prove (via the text in Numbers) that the Israelites returned again, we have evidence that this return, by analogy to the previous one, was also out of obedience to BenAmram. Hence, "And Moses removed them"!
The other allusion is even more explicit, in fact it is a quotation:
Rabbi says, Sufficient is the trust that they trusted in Me that for its sake I shall split the Sea for them, as it is said, "that they shall return and camp." . . . Others say, sufficient is the trust that they trusted in Me that for its sake I will split the sea for them, for they did not say to Moses, we have no victuals for the way, but they trusted and went after
Moses. Of them it is said explicitly in the tradition "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 short, the second opinion is the explanation of the merit of Israel in (2a) above, and it is associated textually with the other case of merit, namely the retracing of steps, which, as we have seen, was also out of faithful obedience to Moses! Now it is clear why a statement about the Israelites returning could be used as a support for their merit in trusting Moses blindly.
It is important that the role of the verse from Jeremiah be recognized. It has both metonymic and metaphoric aspects. On the one hand, it is a comment on the nature of the righteousness of the people in the desert, and as such it can legitimately be applied (legitimately even in modem hermeneutic theory) in several contexts as a comment or justification of a comment on the motivations of the narrative of this period. On the other hand, in both passages its use also generates the actual narrative, for it is precisely the "going after Me in the desert" which is being narrated. Moreover, even the point about the people not wondering where their food will come from is generated by this verse, as it concludes, "in a land in which nothing grows."
A similar case in which Israel gathered
Similar Books
