recent studies in aggadah

Recent Studies in AggadahAggadot vetoldotehen (Aggadah and its Development) by Joseph Heinemann; Post-BiblicalJewish Studies by Geza Vermes; 'Iyunim be 'olamo haruḥani shel sippur ha' aggadah(Exploration in the Spiritual World of the Aggadic Story) by Jonah FraenkelReview by: LEWIS M. BARTHProoftexts, Vol. 4, No. 2 (MAY 1984), pp. 204-213Published by: Indiana University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20689092 .

Accessed: 12/06/2014 21:42

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Indiana University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Prooftexts.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.96 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 21:42:36 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=iupress

http://www.jstor.org/stable/20689092?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


204 REVIEWS

commentary. The apparent reemergence of rabbinic modes of interpretation in

current critical writing may eventually prove to be, in fact, a kind of perspectival

illusion, a species of what rhetoricians call metalepsis, where the later is projected backward and made to anticipate the earlier-the child, as it were, its father.

Rather than rabbinic exegesis having influenced contemporary criticism, it may

be that the newest criticism has actually taught us to appreciate midrash anew,

as a form of literary expression in its own right, by which I mean a text whose

own language exceeds the meaning we might casually assign to it. And the way criticism has instructed us has been through its own example-by demonstrating that critical prose, too, can be read for its own sake; by teaching that narrative

and exegesis are not the utterly disparate and unequal orders of discourse they have traditionally been made out to be; by showing that narrative can serve the

role of exegesis, and that commentary can be as inventive as fiction.

Such instruction appears to be the lesson of Harold Bloom's writings about Kabbalah, for example. While Bloom himself acknowledges that Kabbalah did not lead him to his theories of literary influence, and although he confesses to his own astonishment when he first realized how completely Kabbalah confirmed his map of misreading, Bloom's more amazing contribution in Kabbalah and Criticism

is, to my mind, that it is the first book on Jewish mysticism to give its reader a

"feel" for Kabbalah, a palpable sense of the psychic energies that pulsate through those esoteric bloodlines. For all Bloom's unconcealed debt to Scholem, it is

nonetheless the paradoxical case that Bloom's guide to the constellation of

forces-revisionist, gnostic, Oedipal-lying behind kabbalistic myth somehow

affords access to its hidden paths (at least to the reader already initiated into the

mysteries of literary criticism) in a way that even Scholem's magisterial yet abstracted elucidations of Kabbalah's inner history do not. To be sure, it is no

small irony that Bloom's understanding of Kabbalah is itself modeled upon the

history of post-Romantic poetry, and that his most brilliant intuition was to talk

about Kabbalah as though it were poetry; nonetheless, it may be that the lasting contribution of Bloom's work will be its use of literary categories to teach about

Kabbalah rather than the opposite. Before the Rabbis can instruct us, it may be

necessary to study them lishmah, as they would say, for their own sake. Contrary to the usual rabbinic order of things, their literature may have to be studied

lishmah before it can be used shelo lishmah, for a purpose other than its own, like

teaching us how to do literary criticism today.

DAVID STERN The University of Judaism Los Angeles, Ca.

Recent Studies in Aggadah

Joseph Heinemann, Aggadot vetoldotehen [Aggadah and its Development]. Jerusalem:

Keter, 1974.

Geza Vermes, Post-Biblical Jewish Studies, Leiden: Brill, 1975.

Jonah Fraenkel, 'Iyunim be'olamo haruhani shel sippur ha'aggadah [Exploration in the

Spiritual World of the Aggadic Story]. Hakibbutz Hameuchad, 1981.



Prooftexts 205

Among the numerous types of ancient postbiblical Jewish literature, perhaps none is as fascinating and frustrating to the modern student as the aggadah. Bialik's essay "Halakhah and Aggadah" (1917) and especially Isaac Heinemann's Darkhe ha'aggadah (Jerusalem, 19542) are now considered classic attempts to

define and explain the nature of aggadah and the methods used by the Sages in their creation of legend and exegesis. These efforts have long precedent, although a survey and evaluation of traditional writings on the aggadah, for example the

essays of Maimonides' son Abraham or Zvi Hirsch Hayyis, remains to be written.

The primary burden of many of the previous studies, medieval and modern, has been classification and description. Aggadah is a catch-all term and includes

types of myth or mythic history, legends of biblical and postbiblical characters, theology, homiletics and exegesis. Elaboration of Scripture, legend created to fill lacunae or harmonize apparent biblical contradictions, and creative philology

appear in literary compositions side by side with late exempla, rabbinic hagiog

raphy and folktales. The aggadah of the Rabbis appears randomly in the Pales tinian and Babylonian Talmuds and as line by line exegesis or literary homily in various collections of midrash. Unsystematic transmission stimulated late "sys tematic" collection of various genres. Exempla which were selected to reflect

various didactic/religious themes are found in such works as Nissim ben Jacob ibn Shahin's An Elegant Composition Concerning Relief after Adversity (trans. William

M. Brinner; New Haven and London, 1977) from the eleventh century and The

Exempla of the Rabbis (ed. Moses Gaster; New York, 19682) of unknown date. Midrashic and some talmudic aggadah are collected in the Yalkut Shimoni (thir teenth century) and aggadah of the Babylonian Talmud in the Ein Ya'akov of Rabbi Jacob bar Solomon ibn Habib (sixteenth century), to name the most well known.

These traditional contexts, whose original purposes were education and

edification, raise numerous obstacles for the modern understanding of aggadah.

Dating legends is extremely difficult; specific aggadic passages may be signifi cantly earlier than the edited sources in which they are embedded. The meaning or purposes of legend or exegesis shift constantly because of an author/redactor's

need to reshape traditional material to suit the formally different literary struc

tures of halakhic argument, exegetical commentary or extended literary homily. Because tales were constantly retold and exegesis reworked to serve vastly different intellectual, religious and cultural needs, it is often a complicated or

impossible task to reconstruct the original form of an aggadah, or to discover

the scriptural causes or historical factors which brought it into being.

Contemporary scholars have approached the study of aggadah from varying perspectives. Saul Lieberman's Greek in Jewish Palestine (New York, 1942) and Hellenism in Jewish Palestine (New York, 19622) provided extensive philological and

literary evidence of the interconnections between rabbinic literature and literary methods and Greek/Hellenistic literary culture, specifically in regard to rabbinic methods of interpretation (Hellenism, 47-83) and the "publication" and editing of rabbinic texts (83-99). Of a different character is the work of A. A. Halevi, who has argued for direct influence of classical motifs, characterization and plot (from Homer and Greek mythology) on the aggadah. In recent years, Dov Noy and his students at the Hebrew University have explored folkloristic aspects of this literature; Avigdor Shinan, following the lead of the late Joseph Heinemann, has begun to describe more fully the traces of oral rhetoric in midrashic literature;



206 REVIEWS

and from quite a different perspective, Jacob Neusner and his students at Brown

University have discussed the problematic nature of late hagiographic legends as sources for the reconstruction of the historical biography of Tannaitic Sages.

Scholars whose primary interest is literature have used the tools of philology, folklore, rhetoric and history to describe the literary characteristics of the aggadah and to develop criteria for appreciating a creative endeavor radically different

from both classical and modern Western literary models. The often fragmentary

preservation of an aggadic passage, the chronologically layered strata of a fully

developed legend, and the peculiar homileticallexegetical mosaic form of the

"literary sermon" tend to frustrate those whose aesthetic sensibilities are

attracted by orderly composition and unified works, the parts of which are

interrelated and necessary. Although scholars who select aggadot for purposes of analysis and criticism may be motivated by a desire to find the most historically significant, or literarily structured texts, the readings of such texts commonly turns to more attainable formulations of methodological approaches, systemati zation of interpretative/exegetical techniques and descriptions of values-the

achievement of which is found significantly in the three volumes under discus sion, studies written over the past decade which are devoted to different aspects of aggadah.

Joseph Heinemann, a scholar of wide-ranging interests in rabbinic literature, was perhaps best known for his contributions to the study of midrash and

Jewish liturgy.1 His volume Aggadah and its Development centers on scriptural

exegetical aggadah and specifically on the expansion of biblical narrative or incident. Heinemann's concerns are two-fold and interrelated. Chapters 1-4

deal with basic characteristics of aggadah and methodological procedures for the

analysis of tradition-development (traditionsgeschichte). The remaining chapters illustrate the impact of historical context on the shaping of tradition; these sections treat specific epochs or events (the Hasmonean period, the fall of Bar

Kokhba) and polemics (with Christians, Samaritans and Muslims). For illustration, Heinemann chooses over twenty aggadot selected for their

typical qualities and representative problems. Although he prefaces his discussion

with a series of useful questions on the relationship between aggadah and

Scripture (what motivated the creators of these legends to depart from Scripture, to add to biblical narrative or to deny explicit biblical statements?), his real interest seems to lie with problems that emerge from ancient modes of preserving and transmitting rabbinic and especially nonhalakhic passages.

In his view, aggadah was originally an oral literature, and the tools employed for the study of oral tradition must be applied to it. Understanding the nature of "oral transmission" provides a key to a particular problem in rabbinic literature: often a single aggadah appears in several different collections, and close compar ison of texts may reveal the existence of a multitude of variants in what is clearly the same legend. In most cases, Heinemann argues, the variants reflect

1. In English: "Profile of a Midrash: The Art of Composition in Leviticus Rabba,"

JAAR 39 (1971): 141-150, and Prayers in the Talmud: Forms and Patterns (Berlin & New York,

1977).



Prooftexts 207

insignificant differences and do not represent what might be called a "new creation."

In his discussion of the legend of the Boiling Blood of Zechariah (pp. 31-37), Heinemann provides in four parallel columns different readings of this historically significant aggadah (Sanhedrin 96a; Lamentations Rabba, Petihta 23 and 4:13 and J. Ta'anit 69a-b), the origin of which can be traced to the biblical story of

the murder of the priest Zechariah son of Jehoiada by King Joash (2 Chron. 24:20 ff.). In the postbiblical development of the story, the identity of the victim in some variants is transformed (Uriah the Priest and Zechariah the Prophet); details are added to emphasize the heinousness of the crime (it occurred in the Priests' Court of the Temple on a Sabbath which was also Yom Kippur, etc.) and

the shocking treatment of the victim (his blood was not even covered with dust); and two divergent endings were created (involving the Babylonian general Nebuzaradan).

Based on a comparison of details, language, folklore motifs and plot, Heinemann determines that the four texts in fact present two treatments of the

legend which share a basic identity of plot and structure but differ in style and detail. He suggests that these similarities and differences can best be explained

by the vagaries of oral transmission and not by conscious scribal changes in

copying written texts. The only significant differences in the two groups occurs

in the endings, one of which contains magic-demonic elements (and therefore is

more original) which were reworked and eliminated by the Sages when they created a second ending involving God and His compassion.

Heinemann's emphasis on the oral elements in this legend and his interest

in transmission as a source for variants properly focuses our attention on the

nonliterary stages of aggadic development. However, this focus neglects a crucial

factor in the final determination of the shape of a legend as we find it in the

literary setting. An author/redactor chooses, refines or creates rhetorical features

and significant detail to suit an argument or context of his determination. It is

appropriate, for example, that the author of the Pesikta deRav Kahana would

choose for his homiletical composition on Lamentations 1:1/Isaiah 1:2 ff. that

version of the legend in which Nebuzaradan rebukes Zechariah for permitting the destruction of the people as punishment for his murder, and thereby brings

God to show compassion,2 rather than the alternate version which highlights Nebuzaradan's conversion to Judaism as a consequence of his experience of the

prophet's boiling blood. The conversion motif would make little sense in a Tisha

b'Av context in which God's anger, grief and regret are central themes. Heine

mann is right in suggesting that this legend represented a creative response to

the problem of justifying the destruction of the Second Temple and that its oral features add to its literary impact. But it seems more important to stress that

the Pesikta version (parallel to J. Ta'anit 69a-b and LR 4:13) reflects a specifically Palestinian polemical context. The murder of prophets is a stock argument in the anti-Jewish arsenal of the Church Fathers; its sources are found in the New Testament in which the murder of Zechariah figures prominently.3 In contrast,

2. Pesikta de-Rab Kahana, trans. William G. Braude & Israel J. Kapstein (Philadelphia,

1975), ch. 15, for the Sabbath before Tisha b'Ay. 3. On this, see Hans Joachim Schoeps, "Die juedischen Prophetenmorde," in Aus

Fruehchristlischer Zeit (Tuebingen, 1950), pp. 126-143, and Sheldon H. Blank, "The Death of

Zechariah in Rabbinic Literature," HUCA 13 (1937-38): 327-46.



208 REVIEWS

the magic-demonic elements of the "conversion" legend, the conversion motif

itself, and the Aramaic dialect features of this version might well be traced to

the environment in which the Babylonian Talmud was produced, a document

also edited by Sages who chose not to eliminate "offensive" material! These

matters cannot be explained merely as insignificant variations of language or

detail; they represent instead meaningful differences whose source is to be

sought in diverse theological, historical and polemical settings. Actual historical factors at work in the creation of the aggadah are, of

course, exceedingly difficult to identify, as Heinemann points out. Particular

views or attitudes might fit well in more than one historical period; the fact that most collections of rabbinic literature cannot be dated with any accuracy only

compounds the problem. Important additional questions have to be asked: Did

the Aggadists intend to deal with events of their time? Against the background of which historical period might an Aggadah have been formed? To which

problems might it have been related, and which positions did it seek to commu

nicate? Great care must be taken in formulating answers to these types of

questions; only after close reading and thorough comparative analysis can we

decide whether there are clear points of view expressed or what their character

might be.

Perhaps the most interesting of Heinemann's specific discussion of polemical traces in the aggadah is that which treats the Samaritans (ch. 6). He notes that

evidence of conflict between Jews and Samaritans already exists in their varying versions of Scripture, and lists those instances in which Samaritans forged or

changed the biblical text to support their own claims. (Similar instances in

Qumran or rabbinic writings are not indicated!) In addition, he points to common

aggadot in Jewish and Samaritan tradition which are altered to serve the needs

of each community. For example, the tradition that the Land of Israel and

Jerusalem were not inundated by the flood was adapted by the Samaritans to

apply to Mt. Geri'zim. Heinemann argues that, in fact, up to the third century C.E., problems between Jews and Samaritans, of whom incidently we know

relatively little, were greater and of longer standing than those with the Qumran

community or Christians.

In his last chapter, reference is made to the Pirke deRabbi Eliezer, a late eighth

century compilation, presumably by a single author who developed new legends in a polemical context with Islam. This midrash includes material which is clearly of Islamic origin, but does so in contradictory ways. PRE contains legends which

diminish the image of Ishmael, but care is taken not to insult Muslims by describing Ishmael as an idolator. The only criticism of such a discussion is that

Heinemann tends to be superficial in his description of Muslim sources and lack

of detail weakens his argument. On the other hand, the tendency of the Rabbis to be unspecific in polemical matters leads to precisely the problem of how we are to be specific in evaluating their words.

Geza Vermes's volume is a collection and updating of essays which had appeared between 1960 and 1974. These, plus an additional paper written for this book, reflect Vermes's interest over many years in three interrelated areas:

Qumran, biblical exegesis and rabbinic history. He attempts to integrate these



Prooftexts 209

areas with each other and to offer a coherent glimpse into significant aspects of

a chaotic and profoundly creative religious period.

Vermes, who teaches at Oxford University, is one of the pioneers in the

study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and has written extensively on the history, litera ture and religious attitudes of the sectarian community. His discussions of

Qumranic scriptural interpretation and especially of Bible and midrash have

parallels with Heinemann's work; they are basic to any debate on ancient her

meneutics because of the extraordinary clarity with which Vermes describes

three unequal but overlapping categories of interpretative activity: sectarian,

pure and applied exegesis. As an historian, he views the Qumran sectaries in

relation to the parties and politics of second century B.C.E. through first century C.E. Palestinian setting: Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes and later Zealots-all of

whom based themselves on Scripture and developed contrasting interpretative

claims. The Dead Sea Scrolls represent one of these early exegetical systems and

stand between Judaism and Christianity, having much in common with both. Vermes stresses the role played by the Bible in Qumran by noting the simple fact that except for the Copper Scroll and some fragments, the entire Qumran Library is composed of either biblical manuscripts or works based on Scripture.

Exegesis of Scripture is the crucial area distinguishing the sectaries from

the rest of Jewry, especially in their peculiar emphasis on prophecy. The

Habakkuk commentary (pesher) offers classic examples of the methods of Qumran interpretation, and Vermes finds especially important the comment on Hab. 2:2

for the evidence it contains of the community's basic tenets:

God told Habakkuk to write down that which would happen to the final

generation, but made not known to him when time would end. And as for

that which he said, "that he who reads may read it speedily," interpreted,

this concerns the Teacher of Righteousness to whom God makes known all the mysteries of his servants the prophets.

Vermes extrapolates from his passage the following points: the words of the

prophets are full of mystery and require further revelation; this hidden meaning alludes to what is to take place at the end of the world; the end is near and therefore prophecy applies to the writer's own generation; the person to whom

these mysteries are revealed was the Teacher of Righteousness whose exegesis was alone true.

Vermes contends that Qumran inherited from an apocalyptic milieu influ

enced by the book of Daniel the concept that prophecy is mystery and that new

revelation is required to understand it. This view has recently been challenged

by Ben Zion Wacholder (The Dawn of Qumran [Cincinnati, 19831) who argues that the reverse is more likely, and that the author of Daniel may have been influenced

by the writing of the pesherist on Habakkuk. Moreover, Wacholder argues that the Habakkuk commentary is not typical of the pesherite texts of Qumran because it antedates the existence of the Commune, seems to reflect the earlier

days of the sect, and serves as a kind of model for later Qumran exegesis. Perhaps more significant than the issue of which came first is the need to

develop a carefully nuanced description of exegetical modes-pesher, perush, midrash-and then to determine historical priority and interrelationships.

In the essay "Bible and Midrash: Early Old Testament Exegesis," Vermes



210 REVIEWS

begins by pointing to those passages in the Hebrew Bible which already fore shadow future midrashic interpretation, but moves on quickly to discuss his

main interest: types of exegesis in their varying stimuli and functions. "Pure

exegesis" results from a variety of causes: a scriptural passage contains a word

whose exact meaning escaped the interpreter; it lacks sufficient detail; it seems

to contradict other biblical texts; its apparent meaning is unacceptable. Vermes

chooses examples for each of these causes from the areas of halakhah (e.g. Divorce law and the status of the female slave) and from the aggadah (e.g. the

story and image of Balaam and the sister-wife motif in the stories of Abraham

and Sarah). He stresses, as does Heinemann, that "pure exegesis" is organically bound to the Bible in spirit and method. Many of the traditions stemming from this type of interpretation are already of biblical origin or may be traced to a

period prior to the final completion of the Pentateuch and certainly to the period prior to the final canonization of the entire Hebrew Bible.

"Applied exegesis" has an entirely different focus. Its historical origin is the

beginning of the Christian era, and its starting point is contemporary belief and

custom which the interpreter attempts to connect with Scripture. This is the

period to which Jewish tradition traces the development of hermeneutic principles (Hillel's seven middot); the fulfillment-interpretation of Qumran and the New

Testament also emerges at this time.

Vermes concludes his essay with a discussion of a subject to which Heine

mann had also devoted a chapter-the value of Palestinian Targums as a source

for early biblical exegetical traditions. The subject has long exercised scholars, because the Targums have a complicated history of transmission and contain

quite late material as well. Vermes and Heinemann both provide numerous

suggestive examples and notes sufficient to familiarize the reader with the

debate to date of publication. Further work in this area now has the benefit of

Michael Klein's source book and translation, The Fragment Targums of the Pentateuch,

2 vols. (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1980), the work of Avigdor Shinan, and a

host of other studies. Heinemann and Vermes stress that early material in

targumic collections are echoed in the corpus of well-attested documents which

preserve the earliest examples of ancient Jewish biblical exegesis (the Septuagint,

Pseudepigrapha, Qumran writings, New Testament, Philo and Josephus); the

task of scholarship here seems to be to extract from these sources the common

stock of biblical interpretation, and distinguish from it particular exegeses which reflect sectarian, tendentious, polemic viewpoints.

Jonah Fraenkel's Explorations in the Spiritual World of the Aggadic Story represents something of a departure from this scholar's earlier technical studies of elements of aggadic narrative.4 Fraenkel's purpose here is to describe the spiritual contents of a special type of aggadic story, ma'aseh hakhamim, "the deed of the Sages." He deals with recurring human problems reflected in these stories and with theo logical questions only as they are worked out in the lives of their characters. Fifty tales are presented, translated from rabbinic Hebrew or Aramaic into

4. In English: "Bible Verses Quoted in the Tales of the Sages," Scripta Hierosolymitana 22 (1971): 80-99, and "Paranomasia in Aggadic Narratives," SH 28 (1978): 27-51.



Prooftexts 211

modern Hebrew, with brief philological notes and an appendix listing sources,

parallels and occasional modern references. The tales are organized under three

thematic headings and are treated in terms of conceptual issues: 1) the individual

over against his Maker, 2) the disciples of the Sages and their academy, and

3) the People of Israel in its generation. The subdivisions of the chapters are

theological/existential (Free Choice, Prescience, Providence; Man and Miracle;

Struggle with Death), situational (Inside the Academy; the Academy and the Outside World; the Disciples of the Sages and their Houses) and historical/

theological (the Temple and its Destruction; Gentiles; and Exile and Redemption). Although Fraenkel describes the purposes and focus of this study, his

methodology has to be inferred from the separate analyses of each story and the connections drawn between them (see, however, his "Hermeneutic Problems in

the Study of Aggadic Narratives," Tarbiz 47 [1978]: 139-72). His hermeneutic here flows from what might be termed "existential/thematic" concerns, and the

presentation seems appropriately geared to a popular lay audience. The tales are

discussed in relation to some universal or Jewish human predicament, conflict

or need. Each case is examined with attention to a descriptive analysis of charac

ters, or the nature of their interactions or the force and meaning of their

statements. Fraenkel frequently asks or implies very solid and simple questions of fact: why did incident x happen; what prevented punishment y from occurring; does character z know of statements made by other characters in the story? A

second level of questions is also typical of any inquiry into fiction, whether in

the form of short story or novel: what attitude or viewpoint does character x

represent, what is the meaning of y's question, does the narrator share a point of view with some of his characters or does he have a separate point of view?

The answers to such inquiry may or'may not be self-evident. Fraenkel selects

those responses which reflect what he perceives to be central to the conflict of

values or perspectives in the tale and which lead to the insight or moral lesson

which is the purpose of such didactic stories.

In the first tale, "The Story of Rabbi Akiba's Daughter and the Snake,"

Rabbi Akiba asks his daughter: "What did you do?" The question is designed to elicit either factual information (how did you kill the snake?) or a morally

motivated response (what good deed did you do so that the snake which was

destined to kill you was killed by you?). The daughter's response indicates her

understanding that the question only implied the latter meaning: she fed a poor man while others were too busy enjoying her wedding. In Fraenkel's view, the

narrator here pictures Rabbi Akiba as a person who partially submitted to the

verdict of the stars (astrologers predicted his daughter would die on her wedding day, but he married her off anyway), as a man at the crossroads (not knowing how to explain the dead snake), and as a Sage who also understood the moral

that "charity delivers from death." On the other hand, the daughter did not know of the astrologers' prediction, but almost naturally perceives the "real" question. And the astrologers, who control nothing, merely communicate a mechanical reading of the stars. The moral of the story then goes: the punishment for sin is already prepared, but a person is free to determine how to act. If a

person chooses the good, he feels afterward that he acted well and was saved, but if he sins, then what the stars declare can happen.

Other stories in the first chapter lead to an elaboration of issues implicit



212 REVIEWS

here. The Sages were not merely concerned with the conflict between free will

and providence. They recognized a continuing tension between free will, human

choice and action, and a providence whose measuring rods are reward and

punishment. Such considerations lead to the evaluation of extraordinary char

acters in the second chapter, "Man and Miracle," and to the observation that

what may be understood as "natural" occurrences for some select few are clearly "miraculous" for the ordinary human being. The death of a snake which bites

Rabbi Hanina ben Dosa is not a miracle but the natural consequence of this

pietist's lack of sin and supreme self-confidence. Characters such as Hanina ben

Dosa or Pinhas ben Yair (for whom an overflowing river splits to let him pass)

represent the type of individual for whom miracle is natural. Other mortals

bitten by snakes, drowned in cisterns, swept away by floods-are subject to

the rule that sin kills. Consequently, if normal persons are saved it is a true

miracle, and every true miracle represents an incomprehensible act of God's

lovingkindness. This type of analysis has clear literary support and has been tested by

Fraenkel in graduate seminars at the Hebrew University with significant success.

However, it lacks a perspective which could be of value in the interpretative task. In some sense, Fraenkel stands in conflict with what is now emerging as a

considerable body of scholarly literature on Jewish charismatic types and holy men. In his seminal article on Hanina ben Dosa (pp. 178-214), Vermes assesses

the various stages in the literary development of the legends of this "man of

deed," which he groups under three headings: Healer, Miracle Worker and

Teacher. Vermes then uses these attributes to describe functional roles of Jesus in his Galilean ministry in his important work Jesus the Jew (London, 1973). Some

of the observations of the Hanina essay and the categories developed there have

been challenged or refined (see Sean Freyne, "The Charismatic," in Idedl Figures in

Ancient Judaism, ed. Collins and Nickelsburg, [Scholars Press, 1980]), and indeed

much debate exists regarding the basic descriptive terminology of charismatics

and their powers and activities. Jacob Neusner's History of the Jews of Babylonia

(1965-1970) already contains extensive discussion of rabbis as a class of wonder

workers, and a number of scholars beginning with Morton Smith have added to

our information and understanding of model types in Late Antiquity and in the crucial period with which these books deal. Insights gained from these explora tions suggest that some of Fraenkel's observations on character, language or

action may need modification even in the context of the stated goal of his book.

There is no doubt that the stories he analyzes reflect pressing human and

Jewish concerns, and that these are as legitimate an area of inquiry as the

development of legend surrounding an extraordinary sage or teacher. However,

since such characters as they appear in legend reflect clear typologies, an under

standing of these typologies must enter into the process of determining the meaning of individual tales.

In the end, however, it must be stressed that Fraenkel's literary approach touches a profound orientation at the core of aggadic literature, the purpose of

which is, after all, didactic and moralistic. That orientation is formulated in the rabbinic statement, "if you want to recognize the Holy One Blessed be He, go to the aggadah." The original collections-in which aggadah appears were created, compiled or edited to serve religious ends, to teach lessons. Contemporary



Prooftexts 213

methods of scholarship, not unlike medieval commentary, have a tendency to

further atomize texts which are by nature fragmented and fragmentary, to deal

with parts and not with the whole. Studies in philology, folklore, rhetoric, the

tracing of exegetical themes and the comparison of texts and versions-all these

have to be located in relation to one another within the framework of a larger hermeneutic endeavor. The disciplines need integration, so that interpretation can itself strive for the integrated and balanced reading of these ancient

documents.

Nor are all the partial questions answered. We still need to know what was

the role of polemics within Jewish society, how "pure" and "applied" exegesis

impact on each other, what are the clear distinctions between ancient interpreta

tive techniques (pesher, perush, midrash), and whether rabbinic legends have a life

independent of the literary context in which they are found. Heinemann, Vermes

and Fraenkel have helped us understand aspects of a world and a literature

radically different from ours, and have suggested some of the crucial methodol

ogies for moving ahead.

LEWIS M. BARTH Hebrew Union College Los Angeles



recent studies in aggadah

Documents