Poetic Cohesion

 

By: Jonathan Seidel

Oral society/law and semiological Tanakh: where are the French responsa?

Moses received the written law and the oral law from God. The written of Tanakh and the oral of Mishnah. Many commentators note the need for both since the written is indiscernible without the oral but then what is the need for the written? If much of the law if not society is oral where does literacy play into the mix?

This question is a bit archaic and even more so anachronistic to the contemporary reader. Of course you need a written document, how then do you know the law. If the law isn’t compiled then how does one learn it? This perplexity harks back to the Maimonidean controversy. Undoubtedly unversed in the linguistic transmission such a statutory system is wrongheaded. How could Maimonides write a code (though how could the Geonim do it too)? They could do so if the code wasn’t a code. The code was only a code to the Christian sovereignty. To those who were enveloped in the codification of Hellenistic Christian textuality. The statutory code model was a recent invention of antiquity not the ancient model. 

The code is a semiological codex. A code of signs rather than statutes. The Tur and Mishnah Brurah do oppose the Maimonidean model since their codes are legal compositions. They are semantic compilations. In its irony, they deviated from Maimonides' code with their own. They lambasted him and then copied him. There is no mention of the geonic codes. Just lamenting Maimonides work which they wholly misinterpreted. The ensuing codes were emblematic of the Christian statutes but not Maimonides nor his predecessors. The code is a literary dismembered device. An orally based system constructed in literary form for sources not daily execution. Implementing the code on a literal level besmirches the intent and undermines the oral community of the gedolim. 

Maimonides opined that he wrote it due to lackluster servitude. A similar rationale to Rebbe compiling the Mishnah. It wasn’t to compel literal execution but remind of the legal aptitude. Here is a system of observance that mirrors the Talmud the source of rabbinic authority and legislation. It was a miniature guide into the Talmudic clarification to which communal practice represented. Weaving in allegorical aspects only furthers its Talmudic style of narration as complementary to the legality. The non-legal components only furthered its emphasis on education rather than legislation. It is a genuine marker of Judaic literacy. Combining both law and allegory as did the Talmud, Mishnah and Tanakh. Interweaving both elements synthetically culminated in a profound educational performance. A reference guide with immense value to internalize and analyze.

The Maimonidean misunderstanding only furthers a disconnect with the Mishnah as well. The Mishnah like the Mishneh Torah is an anthological literary masterpiece. The Mishnah is not a codex because it omits many practical laws of tzizit and mezuzah while the Mishneh Torah isn’t a codex because it incorporates impractical laws of sacrifices and temple rituals. Each is a compilation of law rather than statutes of practice. They are reference guides. It is through the Mishnah that the syntactical arrangement bolsters a phraseological sequence. The practice or oral knowledge is inflected into the reference guide. The syntax acts as a symbol instead of an illustration or markings. The necessary communal hub is condensed into shortened liturgy for legal designation. 

Yet it is not only referencing inversely but proactively. The Mishneh Torah is lexicographically intuited from the Talmud. The sign is the final law clarified with a few extra words. Open-ended and vague but Talmudic. The sign isn’t only for a scholar to link to Talmud but also for legislative fluidity. The Mishnah is the classified account of biblical ideas. Linguistically symmetrical to Maimonides' program. The syntactical coordination is a biblical phenomenon. The Mishnah is the first to compile outside the canon. The Mishnah follows the written format. The poetic construction is morphologically consistent. From the biblical canon to the rabbinic canon. It is not only a sign system for scholars to note but for scholars to link.   The Mishnah links the Bible to the Sages and the Mishneh Torah links the Talmud to the Andalusia.

The Mishnah borrowed the lexicographical model from the biblical scribes themselves. The biblical canon itself is a poetic illustration of a unified corpus. The entire corpus is a linguistic portrait connected by an eternal thread. Generations are tied together not solely by plot and emblem but by language. Internally, references are consistently made to prior texts for support and sanctification. It is but a product of its own time and its capability of mentioning the old. The themes remain consistent by the linguistic thread. The copied syntax is a symbol of perpetuity and unity. The written assessment is not just any doctrine or any history but a motivated composition of interconnected ideas into a cherished history. 

In a certain light the written law isn’t really the written law but the written word. The written word contains law and narrative while the oral law is predominantly law. The narratives include law but are less inclined to discuss them. Tanakh is the inverted Talmud. The unified corpus of narrational consistency mentions laws in their contextual formulation. Yet these laws are merely for narrative reasons. They fit the prose not that they are the extent of biblical law. They are parcel of the totality of the law. For example the mention of combustion on Shabbat is not the sole biblical prohibition but the chosen sign for classified creative prohibitions due to its narrational relevance. The written mark is a symbolic representation of the extended system known to the community. 

Textual coherence is a patterned collusion of commutative identity. The texted are semantically related by history and semiotically related by language. The connective thread is literate messaging. To misconstrue is to misinterpret. To read is to recognize. The semiological link is often times evident in the reoccurring retirement speech God gives to each of the forefathers and often times subtle in Jacob’s remark concerning his two lives. The consistency of the phrase as it appears in other formulations and circumstances reflects its imperative. It isn’t something to brush off so easily. It is an intentional piece of the poetic prose. To be consistent in an oral society is to repeat tirelessly. Repetition is a perpetuated theme to internalize. This is no accident but intentional.

Rashi is not peshat but is treated as such. The midrashim that are quoted become canonical. While it is nice that Rashi quotes them it isn’t grammatical but rather conceptual. Rashi sought to resolve difficulties with ideas rather than syntax. The midrashim are rabbinic exegesis not biblical translations. The point of targum is to translate not extend. Midrashim are not the oral knowledge but written expositions of the written word. They have no connection to the oral community. They are not passed down but novel dialogues ascertained. The allegorical format fits well with the dialogical philosophy of Ibn Gabirol and Halevi. The rabbinic aggada is more scripturally conversational but thematic rather than historical.

Rabbinic aggada was sermonic to inspire rather than teach the truth of the text. Possibilities but not peshat. Did Abraham smash his father’s idols? Was Moses king of Ethiopia? Seemingly not. The Sages wished to figure the thematic chasm and filled in such exotic possibilities as mere legends not historical events. Second Temple literature of Ben Sira and Judith add literary extensions to prove a point not make heads or tails of actual events. Some allegorical collections were published in the geonic era. The dialogical trend became more fictionally poetic than realistically fictional. Heading further to systematic orientations conveying ideas succinctly rather than narrative themes.

The geonim never accepted these expositions as literal but to the modern reader they are taught as such. The French did believe their accuracy. Rashi’s prioritization of them into his biblical commentary only cements this point of emphasis. Not all the French were conceptualists but the focus on ideas rather than syntax explored uncharted territory. The sermonic wisdom was educated as the portrayal of history. It wasn’t a bedtime story but a historical depiction. The text was hiding the truth yet the French exposed the wrong one. The semiological truth was the oral detail not the sermonic legends. The extensions not the philosophy. The French model became the normative. Pursuing exaggerated legends as the truth. Abraham’s stories are known by all but they are not child’s play. Adults believe them. The adults haven’t outgrown Santa Claus. 

Two examples will suffice. The Torah says Ishmael “mitzachek” with Isaac. Rashi comments that this was idolatry. Even Nahmanides backs up Rashi. Conceptually the rabbinic ideas of idolatry and Ishmael may align but the biblical word has no relation to that idea. The word “mitzachek” comes up with Lot and Isaac. Isaac and Rebecca are intimate and Lot’s son in-laws mock him. Generally, the correct translation follows the first time it is mentioned as that is Lot it ought to be mock. The wrong answer would be he mocked him sexually since Isaac is positive. Rather it must mean tease. As there is a positive sexual side and a negative mockery side. Ishmael was obviously mocking Isaac. Additionally, the Torah says Jacob was a tent dweller. Rashi says this means he studied in the yeshiva of Shem and Eber. While Bechor Shor notes he was a shepherd he doesn’t elaborate. Yubal, the great grandson of Cain is called a tent dweller concerning a herder. Thus Jacob was a shepherd as Joseph points out when he places them in Goshen since that is their ancestral profession. 

Rashi’s derivation of midrashim and fictional depictions only seek to incur mythology not truth. The Torah is a textual spiderweb not a trampoline to bounce all sorts of ideas. The oral law was the core of the communal daily expression but the written word played a critical role as the foundation. The written word is the reference guide of history and memory. It is not only Torah but the prophetic works are also written. The history is recorded as a sign for the people. A reference to history and duty. It isn’t only Tanakh that is semiological. Nehemiah extends on Jeremiah to clarify the law of carrying on Shabbat as did the Mishnah. The framework is a sign referential that links the entire corpus together. Tanakh is complementary as a guide to the oral centrality. Literacy in its codified form lends a powerful enteral illustration of commitment to the covenant.

The oral community is provided a textual frame to designate as a profound memorial and inspirational matter. It is poetically precise. Lexicographically consistent to complete the spiderweb. A method of textual connection. The oral community can easily access since the symbols repeat. The system is interlocked and interconnected. A theme of linkage encircling the covenantal framework. Syntax is correlative and corrective. The semiological format lends credence to the oral participant seeking an education of history. Through careful liturgy rather than logic the oral community is textualized.