The Elsewhere: On Belonging at a Near Distance

Notes

Notes Preface and Acknowledgments 1. The presentation took place on October 15 at the 92nd Street Y, along with contributions by Susan Sontag and André Aciman. A description of the evening can be found in Alan Lookwood, “In Memoriam W. G. Sebald, Part 2: 10/01; W. G. Sebald at the 92nd St. Y,” www.nonserviamnyc.com/al/ alan_lockwood.html; and also in Ed Park, “The Precognitions: On the Posthumous Trail of W. G. Sebald and William Gaddis,” Village Voice Literary Supplement (Fall 2002): www.villagevoice.com/vls/178/park.shtml. Introduction 1. As glossed by R. Asher Meir, “Meaning in Mitzvot #58: chapter 95,” Yeshivat Har Etzion Israel Koschitzky Virtual Beit Midrash, also online at www.ou.org/torah/tt/5762/ beshalach62/specialfeatures_mitzvot.htm. The mishna discussed in Eruvin 51a specifies how, while on a journey, one declares “his place” (four cubits around) once the Sabbath commences in order to derive the prescribed 2000 cubit limit (tehum Shabbat) for travel. Even though the tehum is a Rabbinical pronouncement, the Talmud seeks scriptural justification (called an asmkakhta) for the operative verse (Ex. 16:29) this way: “It was taught in a baraita [a Tannaitic ruling not included in the Mishna]: ‘Let every man remain in his place’ refers to the four cubits; ‘No man shall go beyond his place’ refers to the 2000 cubits.” R. Hisda explains by means of an exegetical device known as gezerah shava, allowing different Biblical verses to be enchained around a common word. Thus, place in Ex. 16:29 is clarified by the identical word in the verse, ‘And I have established a place whither he may flee’ (Ex. 21:13), referring to the cities of refuge—place thus linked to fleeing. Fleeing [or flight] is clarified by the identical word in the verse, ‘from the border of his city of refuge, whither he may flee’ (Num. 35:26)—fleeing now linked to border, signifying a protective limit. Border is then clarified by the identical word in the next verse, ‘And the blood avenger will find him beyond the border—that word now linked to beyond 281 (or “outside”), which is elucidated by the same word in the verse ‘And you shall measure beyond the city’ two thousand amot in each direction (Num. 35:5), referring to the environs of the special Levite cities. Thus place (four cubits) connects to beyond (2000 cubits), as residence is correlated with journey. The Schottenstein edition of Eruvin, vol. 1 (New York: Mesorah Publications Ltd., 1990) provides an import clarifying resource, as does the Steinsaltz Talmud Reference Guide by Adin Steinsaltz (New York: Random House, 1989). On the innovation of “asmakhta” and rabbinic interpretive procedures generally, see also David Weiss Halivni, Peshat and Derash: Plain and Applied Meaning in Rabbinic Exegesis (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991). 2. “Realm of memory” is the organizing concept for Pierre Nora’s sevenvolume Les Lieux de Mémoire, explained in the general introduction, “Between Memory and History,” to Realms of Memory: Rethinking of the French Past, Vol. 1: Conflicts and Divisions, trans. Arthur Goldhammer (New York: Columbia University Press, 1996), 1–20. In Landscape and Memory (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1995), Simon Schama explains that the word “landscape” (from the Dutch landschap ) originally signified a unit of occupation and jurisdiction (10). For a geographer’s phenomenology of space, see J. Nicholas Entrikin’s The Betweenness of Place: Towards a Geography of Modernity (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1991). For an ambitious materialist analysis of social space, see Henri Lefebvre’s The Production of Space, trans. Donald Nicholson-Smith (Oxford : Blackwell, 1991). Finally, for general introductions to the construct of “place” itself, see Edward S. Casey, Getting Back into Place: Toward a Renewed Understanding of the Place World (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1993) and Roberto M. Dainotto, Place in Literature: Regions, Cultures, Communities (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2000). 3. Shir Hashirim Rabbah, 7. Compare the midrash on 2:1, 2: “‘I am a Rose of Sharon.’ R. Berekiah said: This verse is spoken by the wilderness [itself].” Also, Bamidbar Rabbah 1:1, 7 and 21:18, 26, where the midbar is compared to one’s capacity to learn Torah or be open to others, a generative emptiness. Last, from the same tractate as above, Eruvin 54a: “A person who makes himself like a desert traversed by all [but also implicitly, a “speaker”]—Torah is given to him as a gift.” Marc-Alain Ouaknin and Jos...