Bibliography, Commentaries, Notes
COURSE DESCRIPTION: In-depth study of the Song of Songs, diction, structure, imagery, and depiction of human and spiritual love. Literal vs. allegorical readings in rabbinic, medieval and modern commentaries. Emphasis on imagery, parallelism, and their role in biblical poetry.
REQUIREMENTS. Lectures are based on sources and readings (see bibliography) indicated below, which must be prepared prior to class meetings. During the semester: midterm exam (on text of Song of Songs) and two essays. Class 15: final exam, though students may write a research paper instead, on a topic chosen in consultation with the professor.
BIBLIOGRAPHY. See below. Also consult the following commentaries regularly: (You will need a password to open the ones that are copyrighted)
A. Hakham,
Da'at Mikra: Hamesh Megillot, a basic, thorough traditional-modern
commentary
M. Pope, The
Anchor Bible, an especially comprehensive modern commentary (Introduction)
These commentaries and the other assigned readings include references to
further relevant studies, which students are encouraged to pursue independently.
Sources:
Rashi,
introduction to Song; Ibn Ezra, introduction to Song (both versions)
Readings:
Pope 1977:17-229; Cohen
2003:46-48, 263-265
Sources:
Song 1:1 - 2:7, with Rashi and modern commentaries
Reading: Kamin 1986: 11-22, Gordis Introduction, Hakham Introduction
Sources:
Song 2:7-17, with Rashi and modern commentaries
Reading: Kamin
1991:13-30
| ESSAY #1 DUE September 27, 2005. Based on readings for unit 4, describe how Spanish exegetes (Moses Ibn Ezra, Rambam, Ibn ‘Aqnin) interpreted Shir ha-Shirim differently than Rashi. |
Sources:
Maimonides, Guide of the Perplexed, introduction (Schwarz ed., pp. 16-19)
Readings:
Rosenberg 1990; Cohen
1995/6; Kamin 1991:12*-26*
Reading:
Kugel
1981:1-58
Reading: Alter 1985:3-26, 27-61 (Password required: Copyrighted)
Reading: Berlin 1985: Chs.1, 2, 4, 6, Notes
| November 15, 2005 MID-TERM EXAM on text of Shir ha-Shirim, with translation by Gordis and Da'at Miqra commentary, including both introductions (pp. 3-21). |
Text: Song 2: 8-17 (review parallelism); 3:1-11
Reading: Felix 1964 (optional)
Sources:
Song 4:1-5:1
I MADE A MISTAKE WITH THIS WEEK AND LAST WEEK'S ALTER ARTICLE. IT IS FIXED NOW. PLEASE RE-CHECK!
Reading:
Alter 1985:
Sources:
Song 5:2-6:12
Reading:
Landy 1987
| December 6, 2005. ESSAY #2: Apply methods for analyzing parallelism to remainder of Song. |
Sources:
Song 7:1-8:14
Reading:
Fox 1985: 227-252
Sources: Rashi on Song 2:7-3:11; 4:1, 6, 8, 16; 5:l-8; 6:1-5, 10-12; 7:1, 8, 9-10, 13; 8:3-4, 6
Sources:
Rashbam Gen 37:2; Abraham Ibn Ezra, Safah Berurah 5a
Readings:
Rosenberg 1969; Kamin 1986:57-90; 109-125;
263-274; Ahrend 1994
Reading:
Halkin 1950. Optional: Song of Songs Commentary Attributed to Ramban (Chavel
ed.)
Ahrend,
Moshe. 1994. “The Concept Peshuto Shellamiqra’ in the Making.” In The
Bible In Light of Its Interpreters: Sarah Kamin Memorial Volume, ed. S. Japhet.
Jerusalem, 237-59.
Alter, Robert. 1985. The Art of Biblical Poetry, New York.
___________1987,
“The Characteristics of Ancient Hebrew Poetry.” In Alter and Kermode
1987:611-24.
Alter, Robert and Frank Kermode eds. 1987. The Literary Guide to the Bible, Cambridge, MA.
Berlin,
Adele. 1985. The Dynamics of Biblical Parallelism, Bloomington.
Boyarin,
Daniel. 1987, “Two Introductions to the Midrash on Song of Songs” [Hebrew].
Tarbiz 56:479-500.
________________
2003. Three Approaches to Biblical Metaphor: From Abraham Ibn Ezra and
Maimonides to David Kimhi. Leiden.
Feliks,
Yehuda. 1964. The Song of Songs: Nature Epic and Allegory (Hebrew). Jerusalem.
Fox,
Michael V. 1985. The Song of Songs and the Ancient Egyptian Love Songs. Madison.
Gordis, Robert. 1954. The Song of Songs and Lamentations: A Study, Modern Translation
and Commentary. New York.
Hakham, Amos. 1973. Da'at Mikra: Hamesh Megillot. Jerusalem.
______ Safah Berurah, ed. G. H. Lipman. Furth 1839. Rept. Jerusalem 1969.
First part, ed. M. Wilensky, Devir 2 (1924) 274-302.
Kamin,
Sarah. 1986. Rashi's Exegetical Categorization in Respect to the Distinction
Between Peshat and Derash [Hebrew]. Jerusalem.
__________ 1991. Jews and Christians Interpret the Bible. Jerusalem.
Kugel, James. 1981. The Idea of Biblical Poetry: Parallelism and Its History.
New Haven.
Landy,
Francis. 1983. Paradoxes of Paradise: Identity and Difference in the Song of
Songs. Sheffield.
____________ . “The Song of Songs.” In Alter and Kermode 1987:305-19.
Maimonides. The Guide of the Perplexed, trans. (Hebrew) M. Schwarz. Tel-Aviv
2002.
Murphy, Roland E. 1981. Wisdom Literature: Job, Proverbs, Ruth, Canticles,
Ecclesiastes and Esther. Volume XIII of The Forms of Old Testament Literature,
98-124. Grand Rapids.
Pagis,
Dan. 1967. “A propos de l’amour intellectuel dans les oeuvres de Moise Ibn
Ezra.” Revue des Etudes Juives 126:191-202.
Pope, Marvin. 1977. The Anchor Bible: Song of Songs. New York.
Rosenberg, Shalom 1969 "Bein peshat l'drash," De‘ot 37:91-98.
_______________ 1990. “Philosophical Hermeneutics on the Song of Songs,
Introductory Remarks” [Hebrew]. Tarbiz 59:133-141.
Walfish, D., "Bibliography of Notable Medieval Jewish Exegesis on the Song of Songs,"
Sarei ha-Eleph, Commentaries on the Song
Some commentaries on Song of Songs that I have found and copied:
Aknin,
Joseph ben Judah ben Jacob ibn, (ca. 1150-1220), Edited by A. S. Halkin,
(Mekitse nirdamim, 1964), Hebrew. (Only the introduction and 1st
chapter so far)
Ibn
Ezra, Abraham. Song of Songs Commentary. Standard version in Rabbinic Bible
(Miqra'ot Gedolot, in a Word document, sorted by 'Way').
A
side by side of his "Three ways" from the second recension.
(Not including the intros, for which see above)
Early recension: Commentary on the Canticles (First recension of the
Song of Songs commentary), ed. H. J. Mathews. Oxford 1874.
From
the Second Rabbinic Bible 1527/8
Samuel
ben Meir (Rashbam), English and Hebrew,
from The commentary of Samuel ben Meir on the Song of Songs, Yaakov
Thompson, (1988) (also,
ch. 2 on Rashbam's Methodology)
Ratzhabi,
Y., "Rav Saadias Translation of Song of Songs," Beit Mikrah 43,
1998, pp. 256-262
Ratzhabi,
Y., New Geniza Fragments from the Commentary on the Song, Sinai 125, pp. 1-8
Song, based on Rashi, divided by historical settings and color coded by speakers.
Relationship between human live and divine (spiritual?) love. Note
Netiv’s inro to the chumash, on “sim b’phihem”, says Hazal understand
that Shira means the entire Torah, therefore it’s poetry! He call prose
סיפור פרזי, which is a
non-walled city.
Poetry certainly can be identified kephel inyan b’milim shonot. iE says
ta'am kaphul. Imagery is another feature of poetic works.
We will discuss genre, and then go into the current rage: the history of the
interpretation.
Read Pope: For works on Parshanut of Shir Hashirim see: Rashbam’s commentary
on Shir Hashirim (Yeffet's working on it). Monsheiin is working on iE’s
version in Shir Hashirim. Daniel Frank, working on Kararites Yefet ben Eli
(10th cent) and ???. See Sara Kamin on Rashi on Shir Hashirim.
See Avot d’Rabbi Natan, quoted by Amos Hakham on the gniza issue.
Problem with pshat as “literal meaning” is that sometimes the literal
meaning is only metaphoric, such as “cities with walls in the heavens…”
Reading for next week: Read Amos Hakham into to Shir Hashirim. Read
Gordis intro (pp. 1-18, 43). In the intro look for development to various
approaches to interpretation. Look at dating of the book. Is the
text unified and coherent?
Study 1:1-2:7. What is Rashi’s goal? See Gordis: Translation and
little notes. Follow with Da’at Mikra. What type literature is
this? How does Hakham differ from Gordis? Think about literary
unity/integrity.
Kamin 11-22. Says all Midrashim are peshat. What does Rashi mean by
Peshat?
Finish iE Intro.
Assignment for next time: What does Rashi mean by dugma, and how does it play
into Rashi’s idea of Shir Hashirim. See Kamin. What is the setting
and the literary integrity. Review Rashi on through 2:17 What terms
does he use, and how does he use them. Focus on philological notes of
Gordis.
In two weeks the essay is due so start pondering it: 3-5 pages. Reading
for unit for. Focus on methodology (less on content) Read
Kamin 1991, and The Best of Poetry of false. See guide of perplexed.
See Rosenberg on Rambam.
For iE, when he says derech hayshara or HaIkar, he means pshat, i.e. the correct
meaning of the text. He actually says that every text has only one
meaning, which is pshuto shel mikra. And he says drash is “tosefet
ta’am”.
The plain meaning of iE is that the simple meaning, while it is tahir (or pshat)
Paper idea. Does Ibn Ezra accept the idea of the plain meaning be
story, and the Drashic interpretation is added on (during redaction?) in order
to make it holy/canonical. Baruch Alster, Muncheim is coming out with a
new translation.
What to do with the disconnected settings of the stories. One needs to
metaforize or interpret the text in order to create a unity of the love stories.
I.E. If they weren’t really shepherds and farmers then urbane then
pastoral, the connectivity is not lost.
Did Rashi find unity in the Love story itself? How does Ibn Ezra find
unity?
Kamin Question: Why did Rashi select a new word, Dugma, to deal with Shir
Hashirim, and what does it mean. Also, did Rashi know Latin? Tuito
(1982) says the Rashi and group was inspired by parallel movement in Christian
schools (the little renaissance of the 11-12th century)
Literary integrity of Shir haShirim: If there is an integrity, who are the
speakers of the book, i.e., the characters. Rashi sets up a near-broken
love story to create a real-situation that can be used as a Dugma for the
historical events that pass.
Amos Hakham, by admitting that there are underlying poems, must constantly
attempts to unify the characters and the voice. He keeps most things in a
wedding ceremony. Since these people are face to face, third
person language must be managed. On the other hand, Rashi is describing a
separation, therefore he must explain second person speech.
(In v. 7 Rashi is dealing with the shift in Imagery) On issue of unity:
Read Fox 217-222. Argues for a unified work. P. 110 on the Swear.
Cf. Gordis p. 82.
Essay for next week: What are the key questions about the readings in order to
understand how Spanish exegetes differed. Focus on exegetical principals,
not content.
Note that the man (in 1:9-11) is speaking in a different language and from
a different class (?) than the woman has been speaking up to now. In verse
12-14, she’s not in the party and she’s trying to draw him how. Her
comparisons are to bring him to the pastoral. Come out to the Kerem so to
speak. In verse 15ff they’re now on the same wavelength.
Regarding the leafy bed see commentary by y. felix. And continue this
pastoral image through 2:3