In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Hebrew Studies 33 (1992) 126 Reviews cusses "Biblical Hebrew crb, 'to go surety', and Its Nominal Forms." S. David Sperling, in "Biblical rbm I and rbm II," argues, incorrectly in my opinion, that there are two distinct Semitic roots, one meaning "to have mercy on," the other "to love." Finally, Nahum M. Waldman offers a quintessentially Heldian approach to ancient Semitic interdialectal semantic equivalencies in his study of ''The Imagery of Clothing, Covering, and Overpowering." In nearly every one of the articles, though, the impact of Held's approach is readily apparent, if less so than in this. Taken as a whole, this is hardly a volume destined to make a strong impact on the course of scholarship in its fields. It does, however, constitute a good introduction to the approach and impact of a memorable scholar and truly unique teacher. Stephen A. Kaufman Hebrew Union College - Jewish Institute ofReligion Cincinnati, OH 45220 PESHAT AND DERASH: PLAIN AND APPLIED MEANING IN RABBINIC EXEGESIS. By David Weiss Halivni. pp. xii + 249. New York: Oxford University Press, 1991. Cloth, $35.00. The gap between the peshat-what we all sense a text really means-and what the rabbis write about it can be a problem both for scholars and for religious Jews. Scholars attempt to explain why the rabbis seem to ignore peshat and how they understood the entire enterprise of "interpreting" a text. Traditional Jews, who feel bound to follow rabbinic rulings, grapple with the issue of peshat; they try to avoid adopting either of the two obvious solutions-to dismiss rabbinic exegesis because of its lack of (consistent) sensitivity to peshat or to dismiss peshat as irrelevant to their lives as halakhic Jews. The problem of peshat and derash troubles both the student of Bible and the student of rabbinic texts. A mishnah might interpret a biblical text in a way that few people would consider peshat. The Gemara often interprets a mishnah in a non-peshat way. So also are later rabbis' interpretations of Gemara texts. How does the scholar understand that type of exegesis and how does the traditional Jew make peace with it? Hebrew Studies 33 (1992) 127 Reviews David Weiss Halivni's latest book attempts to address the needs of both audiences, the scholars and the traditionalists. He writes in his preface that the book is purposely divided into two distinct parts, "On Matters of Exegesis" and "On Matters of Theology," with those two groups in mind. Each part can be read as an independent book by a reader who has interest in only one of the issues addressed. Halivni has the proper credentials for writing both such "books," as he himself is a world renowned scholar of rabbinics as well as an observant traditional Jew. Halivni also admits candidly in his preface that the book should be seen as an apologia for his blend of scholarship and traditionalism. He says that one of the major impetuses for the writing of the book is to explain the perceived inconsistency in his own approach to rabbinic texts. Halivni as a scholar is (correctly, I think) seen as an innovator, who is willing to use liberally all the tools of modem critical scholarship to reconstruct the original meaning of rabbinic texts. Yet Halivni is often perceived as a conservative in matters of Jewish observance, particularly by his former colleagues at the Jewish Theological Seminary. In fact, Halivni's dedication to halakhic conservatism eventually led him to break with the Jewish Theological Seminary over the issue of the ordination of women. Halivni argues passionately that halakhic conservatism and innovative exegesis are not mutually exclusive. He sees himself in the tradition of such great Jews as R. Samuel b. Meir (Rashbam), who combined such approaches . Much will certainly be written about Halivni's fascinating theology, but this review will concentrate on the scholarly aspects of the book. Halivni opposes the commonly held opinion that there has always been tension between peshat and derash in Jewish exegetical circles and that there has been over the years a "zig-zagging," where for some period of time peshat may be in the ascendancy before derash again takes over. He argues to the contrary...

pdf

Share