27 Feb '06 17:29

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Would I be within the bounds of traditional midrash (is that the right word?) if I interpreted the nachash of Genesis as leviathan or some kind of monstrous being?

Well, I think you would be in bounds to try it. The problem I run into is the one Nordlys raises: does the story support it at all? As you move from the plain meaning (p’shat) to hints and allusions from the text (remez) to searching out (or reading in from elsewhere) meanings that may not be provided by the text ([d’rash[/i], from which we get midrash), how much does your midrash actually violate the plain meaning. I like it better when I can get another—even unrelated—meaning in such a way that you could say, “Well it could mean that, but it could mean this (totally different thing) also.”

For example, I tried to do a midrashic reading of Lucifer in Isaiah 14:12, giving the whole thing a more positive spin—only to realize that I was doing bloody murder to the fact that it is part of the “song of scorn.”

Try it, and see.

NOTE: "midrash" is the right word; when capitalized, it usually refers to the traditional body of midrashic literature. I've been trying to get a handle on how "violative" of the text the rabbis of the Midrashim are willing to be...

Spirituality

Who and Why?