Thinking of/With Scripture:
Struggling for the Religious Significance of the Song
of Songs
Alon Goshen-Gottstein
The Elijah School for the Study of Wisdom in World
Religions
Jerusalem
Seeking Scripture between the Trees of Knowledge
and Life
Peter Ochs and I have established a kind of
"Scriptural Reasoning Ritual" over the past several
years. Before I attempt a contribution to a
discussion of our society, I always preface it with
the statement that I still don't know what scriptural
reasoning really is. This is met by a sincere nod of
approval from Peter, which permits me to share my
reflections with others more savvy than myself in the
mysteries of scriptural reasoning. The ritual seems
to have now been sufficiently internalized by all
parties that I was invited to make a presentation,
not only to offer my amateur comments on other
people's presentations. Nevertheless, I hesitate to
undertake the task without, once again, performing my
ritual duty of reminding myself and the reader of my
uncertainty regarding what scriptural reasoning
really is. I shall therefore offer my own working
definition, fully aware that it falls short of the
nuanced post-modern philosophical articulation that
governs some of the proceedings of our society. For
the sake of the present paper, I shall conceive of
scriptural reasoning as that process by which we
think of and with scripture. "Thinking of" means how
we conceive of Scripture itself, how we understand
its message. "Thinking with" means how we allow
scripture to shape us. Once understood for its
message, Scripture can and should have the power to
shape and mold our own thinking and experience.
Scripture that once provided written expression for
someone's life and experience now writes our lives
and experiences.
In approaching Scripture, I would therefore
distinguish two distinct, though interrelated,
stages. The first stage involves the mind,
discernment and critical thinking in an attempt to
understand Scripture for what it is. While this is
primarily an intellectual effort, it is also an
effort of listening, involving the heart and the
intuition along with the critical faculties of the
discursive intellect. The fruit of listening and
reflection then engages us. Through it we come to an
understanding that helps shape our lives. What makes
Scripture unique, unlike other forms of writing,
including other people's Scripture, is our commitment
to live by and to think with Scripture. What has been
gained through the effort of mind and the inner ear
now helps structure life, engaging our will, mind and
heart, directing us through life. Scripture thus
provides us with the deep structures, through which
we structure reality. These teach us how to think,
reflect and be in a manner commensurate with higher
spiritual reality, captured in Scripture.
The process of "Thinking of" and then "Thinking
with" Scripture may be simple in and of itself, but
can become greatly complicated. If Scripture is the
Tree of Life, we often go through the Tree of
Knowledge of Good and Evil in our attempt to access
this Tree of Life. Our reading of Scripture often
involves us in complicated mental exercises that
obscure the spiritual sense of scripture, or at the
very least make our access to the spiritual core, to
the teaching of Scripture, more complex. The baggage
with which we come to the reading of Scripture is
varied. Perhaps it can roughly be broken down to two
sorts. The one is the history of interpretation of
our own tradition. This history of interpretation is
at one and the same time part of Scripture itself and
an enriching addendum that at times opens up and at
other times eclipses the meaning of Scripture. The
other kind of baggage with which we come to the
reading of Scripture is the modern history of
interpretation and understanding of Scripture. Unlike
the former category, modern history of interpretation
is not construed as part of the traditional sense of
Scripture. It is therefore not synthesized as part of
the wider meaning of Scripture in the same way as
classical interpretation.[1] Modern historical
interpretation can also complicate our approach to
Scripture. A range of historical, philological and
comparative information is placed before us — The
fullness of the Tree of knowledge. At times we are
overwhelmed by this fullness, causing us to lose
sight of the core teaching contained in
Scripture.
Both kinds of baggage with which we come to the
reading of Scripture can enhance our reading. But
they can also cause us to lose sight of the spiritual
quest for meaning that makes the approach to
Scripture unique. Like the wild jungles that overrun
the temples of Cambodia, excess knowledge and
information can cause us to lose the ultimate core of
that which makes Scripture Scripture — its
capacity to transform our lives and guide them
according to a higher vision contained in it. When
the Tree of Knowledge gains the upper hand, we can at
best aspire to "think of" Scripture. Often, such
"Thinking of" will not be significantly different
from how we think of any text or subject, having
clouded the vision of that which makes Scripture
unique through the aggregate of our hermeneutical
information and historical knowledge.
The ability to draw from Scripture spiritual
lessons, which can then form and transform our lives,
is thus anything but self evident. A dialectic
tension characterizes our attitude as scholars,
seeking to gain direct access to the wisdom of
Scripture through the accumulated knowledge of facts
surrounding Scripture and its interpretation. Whether
our vocation as scholars ultimately facilitates or
hinders our spiritual lives, especially as these take
shape around the quest for the wisdom contained in
Scripture, is a question with which we must always
struggle. The efforts of the Society for Scriptural
Reasoning to establish a means of returning to
Scripture as a consciousness-shaping factor are
testimony to the continuing transformative potential
of Scripture. Underlying such efforts, however, is
the recognition that something has already been lost
through the knowledge gained in the Academy, perhaps
in life itself. We would like to believe that when we
are able to rediscover the temple of Wisdom at the
heart of the overgrown jungle, our vision of it will
be all the richer for the path that we have
traversed. Regardless, we must continue in our quest
to rediscover in Scripture the life-giving force that
can accompany us in our own lives, guiding us beyond
the dualities of knowledge, shaping our minds, hearts
and wills in accordance with the spiritual reality
captured in Scripture.
The Song of Songs — What is at Stake?
As described above, the project of Scriptural
Reasoning is to a certain, if not large, extent a
project that grows from circumstances of crisis.
While different practitioners might suggest various
elements that contribute to such a crisis, I have
concentrated in my previous description upon the
crisis of excess knowledge, especially critical
knowledge, as the structuring crisis giving birth to
the project of Scriptural Reasoning. It is from this
perspective of crisis that I would like to enter the
present discussion of the Song of Songs. In speaking
of crisis I intend first and foremost a personal
crisis. It is likely that other participants in the
discussion may not share the same sense of crisis. In
part, my sense of crisis is a consequence of factors
that I share with other members of the Scriptural
Reasoning community, factors that are
historical-critical. In part, the factors are purely
personal, touching upon my own understanding and
experiences in the realms of spirituality, sexuality
and love. It is perhaps appropriate to the subject
matter, the Song of Songs, that a personal subjective
element should so consciously shape the discussion.
 Still, I do not consider the questions
that I shall set forth in this paper to be purely the
accident of my own biography or spiritual leanings. I
strongly suspect that the questions I ask are of
relevance for other readers of the Song of Songs and
for other members of our intellectual community. To a
certain extent the relevance of what follows is a
function of how much other readers will resonate with
the difficulties as I set them forth. But even for
the reader who does not share the same sense of
crisis, I hope that my ability to clearly state the
issues at stake for me in approaching the Song of
Songs as Scripture will enable an adequate
articulation of why for her the subject is
problem-free.
The Song of Songs has been a problem almost since
its recognition as part of Jewish scripture. An
indication of the problematic status of the Song is
found in ancient debates as to whether it should or
should not be considered part of the canon.[2] The
history of interpretation of the Song of Songs is in
many ways a history of the answer to the question of
the religious meaning of the Song. Interpreters
throughout the generations have interpreted the Song
of Songs in accordance with their understanding of
the values of the religious, spiritual and mystical
life. In so doing, they not only legitimated the
presence of the Song of Songs in the canon, but also
found great spiritual treasures and wealth in the
words of the Song. The rich history of interpretation
of the Song certainly "saves" the Song, from a
traditionalist perspective. Personally, I am very
comfortable with many of the creative ways in which
the Song has been read. I am at home with Rabbinic
interpretation of the Song, with its mystical
resonances in kabbalistic literature, with its poetic
evocation in liturgical poetry, and (if quoted I will
obviously deny that even) with the Christian mystical
interpretation of the Song. And here is precisely the
point. I am comfortable with all the ways in which
the Song has been read, with the great treasures of
the human spirit, with the flights of mystical love
expressed by appeal to the words of the Song. But
what impresses me in all this is the enormous wealth
of the interpretive power, mystical imagination and
religious passion of the two religious communities
that have read the Song of Songs as Scripture. It is
not the Song itself that touches me. Aware of the
secondary nature of all such interpretation, and of
the ways in which all readings function as ways of
justifying and saving the Song, I am able to resonate
with all, or most, secondary interpretive moves. The
Song itself, however, is no longer visible to me as a
unit of Scripture that conditions my spiritual life,
providing it with meaning. Consequently, I am unable
to find a way of "Thinking with" the Song of Songs. I
may be able to "think of" the Song of Songs, through
the lens of the Rabbis, Maimonides, the Zohar or Rav
Kook. A wide definition of Scripture may allow me to
consider all of these as part of my arsenal for
Scriptural Reasoning, thereby shaping my
consciousness and how I live the world spiritually.
However, I will not be able to "think with" the Song
of Songs. It will not be the Song of Songs that has
functioned as a spiritual structuring force but what
has been made of it through the history of
interpretation. It is here that I locate my crisis in
relation to the Song of Songs. This is perhaps the
only biblical text of which I am unable to make
spiritual sense on its own account and for which I am
wholly indebted to the history of its interpretation.
This already places me at one remove from Scripture
itself. But no less significantly, I cannot really
endorse any particular hermeneutical approach to the
Song as providing anything but an attempt, more or
less successful, to come to terms with the presence
of the Song of Songs in the biblical canon. I am
painfully aware of the challenge that all
interpreters faced, and am full of admiration for the
multiple solutions they proposed. However, this
awareness places the entire history of interpretation
of the Song at a remove from the text itself.
There are several reasons why I am more aware of
this gap with regard to the Song of Songs than with
regard to other parts of Scripture. One reason is
that I have devoted some of my scholarly attention to
the question of the Rabbinic interpretation of the
Song of Songs, thereby focusing my attention on this
particular problem. Another reason seems to be the
problems associated with this text in particular. It
seems the Song of Songs poses a unique problem in
this regard within the biblical canon. Hence, the
greater difficulty of "Thinking of" and even more so
of "Thinking with" the Song of Songs. This will
become clearer as I move on to the next part of my
presentation, in which I trace some key components of
the interpretation of the Song of Songs.
Framing the Problem
My problems might have been a lot simpler had I
subscribed to the work of some biblical scholars, who
propose a cultic reading for the Song of Songs.
Marvin Pope and others suggest the original function
of the Song of Songs was cultic.[3] The roots of the
Song are pagan and it is the god and goddess who are
described therein. If this is the original meaning of
the Song, I could readily apply the kabbalistic
arsenal at my disposal to translate what may have
originally been a pagan piece to what to me are
normative Jewish terms.[4] However, I am unconvinced
by the cultic reading. The common scholarly
presentation of the Song of Songs as a series of love
poems, originally referring to human love relations,
and later assuming some alternative meaning, seems to
me appropriate. Hence, the framing of the question:
what is the religious significance of these
originally human love poems? Framing the question in
this way is not essentially different than what has
been taking place for nearly two thousand years of
interpretation of the Song. Almost all interpreters
are engaged in precisely this task, though not all
define the problem as explicitly as I have. The Song
of Songs thus places before us a challenge that is
perhaps unique in the biblical canon — providing
religious significance for a human literary creation,
a creation that celebrates humanity and one of its
key expressions — human love relations.
Brevard Childs has proposed what to me is the most
ingenious way of sidestepping the entire
issue.[5] Childs focuses on the
ascription of the Song to Solomon. The solomonic
attribution suggests the Song should be considered an
expression of wisdom. Wisdom seeks to understand
through reflection the nature of the world of human
experience in relation to divine reality. The
polarity of sacred and secular is foreign to biblical
wisdom. The Song is wisdom's reflection on the joyful
and mysterious nature of love between a man and a
woman within the institution of marriage. This is a
wonderful way of making sense of the Song of Songs.
The Song is understood for what it is, namely: the
celebration of human love. However, for Childs this
is limited to the institution of marriage. It is thus
conjugal love that is being celebrated. Perfect, but
unconvincing. What is a perfect description of texts
such as Proverbs 31 does not aptly describe the
dynamics of the Song of Songs. Marriage is nowhere to
be found in the Song. The value of eros so
transparent in the Song of Songs does not seem
well-contained within the proposed wisdom context.
Nor does this reading make sense of the literary
structure of the work. The series of love poems in
which speakers change roles, and the multiple
settings of these love poems, do not lend themselves
easily to the wisdom reading proposed by Childs.
An alternative strategy to that proposed by Childs
has been proposed by Ilana Pardes, and several
colleagues have suggested it in reply to earlier
presentations in which I shared my understanding of
the earliest religious significance of the Song of
Songs. According to this understanding, the Song
celebrates human love for what it is. Scripture would
be incomplete if it did not have in it an expression
of an aspect of life so germane to humanity, its
pursuits and its happiness. What could be more
natural, beautiful, and even spiritual, than the
inclusion of human conjugal love as a value to be
admired, praised and celebrated? Underlying this
suggestion is possibly a particular notion of
holiness. Unlike most of the history of
interpretation that sees holiness as related in some
way to separation and removal, and therefore must
struggle with or account for the sexual component in
the Song of Songs, this view considers holiness a
form of fulfillment, integration and full expression.
To express one's human love, even one's sexuality, is
thus not only not incommensurate with a notion of
holiness, but may actually fulfill such a notion. I
admit that as a strategy of interpretation this is
probably the most effective way of making sense of
the Song of Songs as part of Scripture. The Song is
read for just what it is, and that itself teaches us
something about a scale of values. In fact, this
reading would allow us to "think with" Scripture.
Scripture would provide us with language, metaphor
and attitude through which we could address human
love and sexuality. A healthy sexuality, grounded in
a biblical view of the joy and celebration of the
life of the couple, emerges as part of the biblical
legacy, thereby shaping our own attitude to these
matters. Perhaps Childs himself intends just this in
his suggestion. It is possible that his reference to
marriage is meant simply to provide moral
safeguarding, rather than to suggest that it is the
institution of marriage that is being celebrated.
Either way, here is a distinct way of making some
kind of spiritual sense of the Song of Songs, placing
aside the various contortions of its later history of
interpretation.
While I admit the effectiveness of this strategy,
it does not work for me. Why not? Perhaps I am too
deeply influenced by the history of interpretation.
Perhaps my conjugal experiences were never so
successful as to make me want to speak of them in
terms borrowed from the Song of Songs, let alone to
ascribe to them such religious significance. Perhaps
I am simply too much of a prude. Or perhaps my
literary, rather than moral, expectations are too
high. It is not sufficient for me to say that the
Song of Songs captures an important dimension of
human life. The Song does so through a series of
literary strategies, poems, situations etc. None of
these seem to be carried through when we simply
consider the Song a reservoir for the expression of
human love. And perhaps my understanding of
"religious" is also too defined. In reading these
love poems, like in reading any love poems, I am not
stirred in ways that are recognizable to me as part
of my spiritual life or progression. Granted, my
entire life is part of my spiritual life, my love
life not excepted. However, this does not turn all
stirrings of love into forms of religious expression.
To the extent that I am able to recognize the quality
that is awoken in me through a literary work or a
work of art, I cannot say that I am religiously
inspired by reading these poems, when I read them as
expressions of human love. I may be inspired and
moved by a painting portraying human love at its most
delicate. That stirring, however, is for me quite
distinct from the spiritual stirring I know so well
in other contexts.
The Song as an Allegory of Love
As a scholar of Rabbinic Judaism, I come to this
project first and foremost through a historical study
of what the Song of Songs meant to the Rabbis. The
Rabbis are the Song's earliest interpreters.[6]
Hence, how they understood the Song is highly
significant to what the Song could mean for us. In my
study of Rabbinic attitudes to the Song of Songs, I
have located four different modes that are relevant
to a discussion of the Rabbis' understanding of the
Song of Songs. Let me briefly present three of these,
and consider their implications for our present
discussion.
The first mode is perhaps the most celebrated and
well known approach to the meaning of the Song, as
understood by the Rabbis. This is probably the most
common understanding of the reason for the inclusion
of the Song within the Jewish canon. It stems from
the seemingly obvious understanding that the subject
of the Song is love, and that in order for it to have
religious significance, it must refer to classical
religious subjects. In the case of ancient Rabbinic
hermeneutics, God and Israel are usually presented as
the subjects that provide the religious significance
of the Song. This position has been articulated by
various writers.[7] The key to this
understanding is that the subject of the Song of
Songs is love, the love between God and Israel, as
manifest in a variety of ways, in relation to
cardinal religious concepts and key historical
moments.
There is much appeal to this view. Indeed, I
imagine that if I subscribed to this understanding on
historical grounds, I may never have found myself
writing the present piece. There are, however, in my
opinion, serious difficulties with this position,
that lead me to consider it untenable. I shall have
to leave the work of arguing the point in detail to
my forthcoming work on the Rabbinic interpretation of
the Song of Songs. I shall simply spell out the main
objections.
This view assumes love as the theme and subject of
the Song of Songs, hence of its Rabbinic
interpretation. However, this is never proven. The
frequency, usage and appeal of love in Rabbinic
interpretation to the  Song of Songs
are never measured, but are taken for granted. My own
investigation of the subject has led me to the
startling conclusion that love is not a primary value
in Rabbinic interpretation of the Song of Songs. In
other words, what the Rabbis highlight is not love,
but a variety of topics, concepts and verses, typical
of their interpretation of the entire biblical
corpus. There is no indication that the Rabbis felt
that love was the ultimate subject matter, hence next
to nothing is said of love in their commentaries on
the Song. There is nothing unique in their
interpretation of the Song of Songs to single it out
against the wider backdrop of their general
hermeneutical practices. All references to love are
imported by modern scholarship in its attempt to
construct a framework from which Rabbinical
interpretation can be appreciated. This imported
framework obviously begs the question of the
significance of the Song, and I therefore reject
it.
Related to the question of the centrality of love
in Rabbinic interpretation is the question of the
mode of Rabbinic reading. The common understanding is
that the Rabbis read the Song as an allegory, even if
the literary allegorical practices are not as strict
or developed as those found in hellenistic
allegoresis. This assumption is fundamental to this
understanding of the Rabbinic use of the Song of
Songs. I fully share Boyarin's rejection of the
relevance of allegory to the Rabbinic interpretation
of the Song of Songs.[8] The upshot of this
rejection is the undermining of the understanding
that how the Rabbis came to terms with the Song of
Songs is by seeing it as an allegory of love.
Does the rejection of this understanding for the
canonization of the Song of Songs necessarily entail
a rejection of the thesis itself? This is an
interesting question. It suggests that the earliest
interpreters might have accepted, canonized, or even
just interpreted the Song in ways that are less than
its full spiritual potential, leaving the fuller
potential to be realized by later generations. The
suggestion is even more interesting in view of the
fact that Christian interpretation of the Song of
Songs, beginning with Origen, surely highlights love
as the ultimate theme of the Song of Songs.[9] That
the Christian understanding of the Song of Songs
might potentially carry greater spiritual value or
serve as a source of greater spiritual inspiration is
one of the interesting theoretical possibilities one
has to contend with in discussing the meaning of
Scripture and its interpretation between Christians
and Jews. Perhaps fortunately one does not need to
unduly worry about crossing the lines, because later
Jewish authorities certainly did read the Song as
expressing love as its ultimate spiritual message.
Perhaps the clearest articulation of such an
understanding is found in the introduction of Rabbi
Kook to the Song of Songs, in his commentary on the
Siddur, Olat Reayah. According to Rav Kook,
the Song is the fullest and finest expression of the
tendency of the soul to love the absolute good. It
expresses something fundamental about the soul, that
could not be expressed but through the linguistic
wealth of the Song. The finest and most sublime love
thus finds expression through the love poems of the
Song of Songs.
Rav Kook was a fine spiritual exegete. He did not,
however, compose a commentary on the Song of Songs,
leaving only isolated notes to individual verses.
Perhaps had he composed such a commentary I could
have found the balance between literary integrity,
spiritual inspiration and hermeneutic authenticity I
so long for in the interpretation of the Song of
Songs. Lacking a hermeneutical implementation of the
lofty overarching understanding of the purpose of the
Song, I am left unable to read the Song with Rav
Kook's fullness of faith and feeling. I find it hard
to read the verses of the Song with the conviction
that these are the words that express in the most
sublime way my soul's yearning for God. I cannot
bring myself to recognize that this is the most
appropriate language through which I can speak of
God. It is one thing to offer a historical or
spiritual allegory. It is quite another to valorize
the language of the Song of Songs to such a degree
that it becomes the defining feature of the most
noble form of spiritual expression. All the reasons I
list above may once again be at play. But recognizing
my shortcomings does not carry me beyond them to the
lofty heights of Rav Kook's gaze upon the Song of
Songs.
Christian readers, by contrast, have succeeded in
reading the Song in ways that seem to me far more
convincing, spiritually speaking. Origen and Bernard
are the two writers whose work on the Song I am most
familiar with. I am struck by the balance between the
attempt to read the Song as an integrated coherent
literary unit, the power of spiritual interpretation
and the translation of these two into the riches of
interpretation. Impressed, inspired, but obviously
unable to fully enter into that mode of reading. For
their readings are predicated not only on an
acceptance of the New Testament as the key to
understanding scriptures from the Hebrew Bible.
Perhaps more significantly in our case, their
interpretations are founded upon the belief in the
incarnation, which in turn allows us to apply a
particular language to God. The particular mix of
celibate interpreters applying erotic language to an
incarnate God is enormously potent, yet totally
irrelevant for me as a Jewish reader.
There are, of course, numerous Jewish allegorical
readings of the Song of Songs. Even if, following
Boyarin's work as well as my own, allegory was not
the hermeneutical key to the Song of Songs in the
first instance, it certainly became so for many later
Jewish interpreters. I have not read many Jewish
allegorical commentaries to the Song of Songs. What
little I have read has struck me, pardon the
expression, as lame. Allegorizers are engaged in a
transparent project of making the text work, and in
so doing attempt to read a particular agenda into the
text. Hence the allegorical interpretations of some
of the philosophical interpreters of the middle ages,
like Gersonides. For someone struggling with the
religious sense of the original text, it is not
sufficient to make it work by offering some
spiritually or theologically correct reading. This is
what allegorizers do. I remember how disappointed I
was recently in reading Shlomo Alkabez's Ayelet
Ahavim. I had expected the author of the mystical
love poem "Lecha Dodi" to offer a no less inspiring
reading of the Song of Songs. Instead I found a
highly scholastic attempt to offer a consistent
reading of the Song of Songs as relevant to one topic
— the relation of the Torah to its student. In
carrying forth his task, Alkabetz repeated so many
familiar moves that I felt I was once again on
Rabbinic turf, only more systematically expounded
with a touch of philosophical sophistication
added.
I don't know if a great allegorical commentator
will arise who will be able to demonstrate the power
of divine love as expressed through the Song of
Songs. I fear the stringency of demand placed upon
such an interpreter, by the accumulated literary,
linguistic, historical, interreligious etc. knowledge
that we possess, will make it impossible to offer a
Jewish spiritual reading that will work, in ways that
Christian allegory has worked for so much of
Christian interpretation. I am thus led away from the
allegorical, love-based, understanding of the Song of
Songs, in search of other ways of making religious
sense of the Song.
Let me
return to Boyarin. My own studies fully confirm the
following paragraphs, reporting on his work. If
allegory is not the key to Rabbinic interpretation,
an intertextual reading of the Song is. Boyarin
points to the fact that the Rabbis read the Song of
Songs as a parable to various events in Scripture. We
should take Scripture here in the widest possible
sense. Its primary meaning is, of course, the Torah.
But the Prophets, later historical events, key
religious values, even the figures and the events of
later Rabbinic times, are all part of the wider
referents of the Song of Songs. The Song is
significant because it points to other known
religious and scriptural realities, that endow it
with meaning.
It is
important to note that the Rabbis never offer one
consistent interpretation of the Song.[10]
Thus, each verse of the Song is applied in the
different midrashim to various subject matters.
Proponents of the allegorical reading usually ignore
this difficulty, at times suggesting the different
individual interpretations are but examples of the
wider theme of the love allegory.[11] What strikes
the reader, however, is the diversity, rather than
the unity of Rabbinic interpretation. Importing the
unifying principle from outside the Rabbinic sources
begs the question and should be avoided. Thus, the
Rabbinic interpretations should be read individually,
and not as part of a larger allegorical theory. The
upshot of such an understanding is that each
individual verse of the Song can serve as a prism,
through which other aspects of Scripture, or of the
spiritual reality of Israel, can be refracted. The
Song is meaningful not because it has been decoded,
or because some wider governing logic has been
unveiled. On the contrary, it is significant because
it is never read for itself. It is only read in
tandem with other instruments of valuation —
scriptural, historical, communal. These provide the
Song with its religious meaning, illuminating its
different verses in light of known values of the
religious system. In the deepest possible sense, this
is not an allegory precisely because it lacks
coherent meaning as a whole. The Rabbis have taken
apart the Song of Songs, and read it through its
smallest units, the individual words or verses.
Having done that, they have fully integrated the Song
of Songs into their religious worldview, never even
giving rise to the question of the religious
significance of the Song of Songs. It has none,
simply because in a sense it has ceased to exist.
Thus, one cannot speak of a theory of the
interpretation of the Song of Songs, any more than
one can speak of a theory of the interpretation of
the book of Job, Esther or Psalms. Biblical books are
read unit by unit, and homologized to the greater
theological whole of Rabbinic Judaism, focusing
primarily on Torah interpretation. Scripture thus
becomes one unit, delivering one coherent message. In
that message,the uniqueness of the Song of Songs is
lost.[12] The Song of Songs
operates hermeneutically like any other part of
Scripture.
There is another way
in which the Song of Songs functions for the Rabbis,
which has not yet been presented in the literature.
In the intertextual bond of the Pentateuchal text and
the text of the Song of Songs, it is not only the
uniqueness of the Song that is lost. The intertextual
encounter also transforms the text of the Torah. In
order to appreciate this transformation, we must
consider the category of praise.  By addressing a passage of the Torah, or a
central cultural value, by means of a certain
scriptural passage, a value is transferred onto that
Torah passage from the relevant scriptural passage.
If the Song of Songs addresses other parts of
scripture, one cannot reduce its function to simply
telling or alluding to a particular passage of the
Torah through a different linguistic expression.
While the content of the verse for the Song may be
reduced to the substance of the verse of the Torah, a
value is imported by use of the verse from the Song
to address the verse of the Torah. There is thus a
reciprocal exchange between the two biblical texts.
The text of the Torah provides the substantive
meaning for the verse of the Song. The verse from the
Song provides the valuation for the verse of the
Torah. Because of its specific content, the Song of
Songs provides one particular valuation: praise. Its
language is most suited to convey praise. It thus has
a unique contribution to make to the appreciation of
the text of the Torah, or the values that the
interpretation of the Song of Songs
highlights.
We find praise as a
controlling feature of the Rabbinic application of
the Song. Thus, a hermeneutical rule is established,
limiting the intertextual associations of the Song to
biblical stories that praise Israel, rather than to
verses that portray them in a negative
light.[13] Various verses of the
Song are read as praises of God and Israel. Thus, the
descriptions of the lover and beloved are understood
as expressions of praise.[14] Indeed, the entire
Song of Songs is unique and special because it is so
full of praise. Let me quote two relevant
introductory passages to midrashim on the Song of
Songs that present the significance of the Song in
terms of praise.
In all other Songs either God praises Israel or
they praise Him. In the Song of Moses [at the Red
Sea] they praise Him, saying "This is my God and I
will glorify Him" (Ex. 15,2). And in the Song of
Moses [before his death] He praises them, as we
read, "He made him ride on the high places of the
earth" (Deut. 32,13). Here, however, they praise
Him and He praises them. He praises them: "Behold
thou art beautiful, my beloved" (Song 1,16), and
they praise Him: "Behold thou art beautiful, my
beloved, verily pleasant" (1,17).[15]
Another commentary: Song of Songs, concerning this
scripture said "He composed three thousand
proverbs, and his Songs numbered one thousand and
five" (1Kings 5,12)...[16] For Solomon composed
many Songs. And [why is it said Song of Songs in
the plural]?[17] Because it contains the
praise of God, the praise of the Torah and the
praise of Israel. God's praise whence? For it is
said: His head is finest gold (Song 5,10). And of
the Torah, for it is said: And his banner of love
was over me (Song 2,4). And of Israel, as it is
said: Like a lily among the thorns (Song 2,2). And
the praise of the ingathering of the exiles, as it
is said: Trip down from Amana's peak (Song
4,8).[18]
The praises of God, Israel and the Torah are
obviously related in the larger relational
framework.. However, they are not presented in direct
relation to one another, and there is no reciprocity
in their praise. Once the Torah has entered as a
third praiseworthy element, the door has been opened
to any value to be praised by means of the Song of
Songs. The inclusion of the ingathering of the exiles
illustrates this. Praise allows for multiple foci.
Israel and God may be frequent referents of the Song.
However, they do not have a controlling position in
the interpretation of the Song. Any value within the
religious orbit of the Rabbinical worldview can be
the subject of interpretation, and consequently, of
the praise of the Song of Songs. Here is the heart of
the difference between the understanding that the
Song expresses love and the understanding that the
Song expresses praise. For the understanding that the
Song expresses love, the love is contained within the
relationship of God and Israel. For the theory that
the Song expresses praise, anything of value can be
praised. Praising is a function of ascribing value,
and not of declaring love. Therefore, even when God
and Israel are praised in Scripture, their praise is
not the amorous exchange that characterizes the Song.
It is not God that praises Israel, nor Israel that
praises God. Rather, they are both praised by the
objective voice of Scripture. Scripture serves as the
vehicle by means of which the ultimate praise is
conferred upon the leading values. The objectivity of
Scripture's praise has displaced the subjectivity of
the lovers' relationship.
Song of Songs and the Power of Language
Both the intertextual understanding and the
recognition that the Song of Songs should be
understood in terms of praise are the classical
Rabbinic way of reading the Song. This has enormous
significance both to the presence of the Song in the
canon and to the history of its later usage. The Song
of Songs never made it into the Jewish canon because
of what it meant. It made it because of its purported
solomonic authorship. Therefore, in making sense of
the book, little was made of what the book meant in
and of itself. What was significant for the Rabbis
was not some theory of what the book meant, as
proponents of the allegorical reading extolling love
suggest. Rather, the Rabbis determined the
significance of the book, by disengaging the book's
verses from their original context. What the book had
to offer lay in the realm of its linguistic
expression, rather than in the realm of its message
and content. In the reciprocal transferal of meaning
between verses from different parts of scripture, the
Song of Songs offered poetic expression, beauty and
inspiration. What it meant was up to the Torah, or
the Rabbis, to determine. In addressing cardinal
values of the Jewish religion, the Song of Songs
could praise in ways that no other part of scripture
could. Indeed, the Song does emerge as unique. But
its uniqueness is a function of its linguistic
wealth, the lush images, the seducing scenes, and not
the story line, the quality of love or its humanity.
Taking the book apart, allowing only its language to
resonate, not its meaning, is the secret of how the
Rabbis came to terms with the Song of Songs.
Is this strategy of reading a conscious attempt to
undermine the book and overcome the challenge placed
by its content? Not necessarily. The ways in which
the Rabbis read the Song of Songs are typical of how
they read scripture in general. Clearly, they did
attempt to defuse the erotic charge of the
book.[19] But they did not devise a
strategy of reading especially for the Song of Songs.
Rather, they read the Song as they would any other
part of the post-pentateuchal canon, thereby
naturally eliminating all the difficulties that later
Jewish and Christian interpreters would have to
contend with.
Rabbinic hermeneutics did not cease with the
Rabbis. The philosophers established a different
hermeneutic, consisting of systematic reading and
carefully worked out allegorical interpretations. But
kabbalistic authors, especially the Zohar,
comfortably continued Rabbinic interpretive
practices. My impression of how the Song of Songs is
utilized in the Zohar is one of great continuity with
Rabbinic usage. The kabbalistic revolution of reading
all of scripture in relation to the Divine obviously
includes the Song of Songs as well. But, it seems to
me on first examination, that the Zohar did not offer
a different theory of the reading of the Song of
Songs. It does not undertake a systematic exposition
of the Song in light of its own particular
theological worldview. Rather, the Zohar simply
carries on Rabbinic hermeneutical practices. Given
the significant shift in the Zohar's theology, it is
natural to apply verses of the Song to various
mysteries of the Divine union of God and the
Shekhina. However, this does not amount to a
theory of how the Song of Songs should be
read, any more than Rabbinic reading of the Song
amounted to the allegorical theory of
interpretation.[20] Rather, it was natural
and possible for kabbalists to read the Song as
delivering a particular theological understanding,
because verses could easily be detached from their
wider context, and charged with the particular charge
typical of kabbalistic theosophy. Like the Rabbis,
the kabbalists could make the Song mean whatever they
desired not because they had a theory, but because
they had a mechanism of application. The popularity
of the Song in Zoharic interpretation should, in my
opinion, be construed as a spontaneous application of
its enormous linguistic potential. The authors of the
Zohar would respond intuitively to the wealth of
language, imagery and erotic potential contained in
the Song of Songs, recasting the original biblical
verses in true midrashic fashion into their new
divinely contextualized midrash. It is therefore
futile to count the number of quotes from the Song of
Songs in the Zohar as an indication of a theological
understanding or the theological centrality of the
book.[21] Statistics only serve to
confirm the enormous linguistic potential of the
latter day intra Divine midrashists, who extended the
midrashic method to address the life Divine.
Thinking with Scripture and the Power of
Language
We can now return to a point in the presentation
that we left off when we entered the detailed
discussion of the Rabbinic interpretation of the Song
of Songs. I stated earlier my profound miscomfort
with the Song of Songs as a part of Scripture. I am
now in a better position to articulate this
miscomfort. Let us return to the distinction between
"Thinking of" and "Thinking with". I have time and
again in this essay pointed to my difficulty in
accepting various forms of "Thinking of" the Song of
Songs. While I would have liked to embrace a
successful love-allegorical reading of the Song, I
have yet to locate a reading that does justice to the
text, provides spiritual upliftment and provides one
with the sense of the propriety of erotic language as
a means of portraying our relationship with God. But
my own frustrations — constrictions, if you will —
are only half of the story. The other half is the
realization that how Jewish tradition operated in
relation to the Song of Songs was precisely by
sidestepping any attempt to offer a reading that
would enable us to "think of" the Song of Songs. The
text itself remains vacuous, only its interpretations
radiate in the heavens of Jewish interpretation. And
radiate they do. For terrific riches have been found
through the application of the midrashic hermeneutic.
Personally, I am quite happy subscribing to the
images and processes described in the kabbalistic
works. Yet, I can only do so through the midrashic
deconstruction of meaning and the attendant
valorization of language. If I were to look at the
Song of Songs and ask: Can I regard this as a
spiritual work because it aptly describes the
relationship of God and His Shekhina, I would be
forced to reply in the negative. I cannot bring
myself to consider this the meaning of the text.
Perhaps some kind of hermeneutic leap of faith beyond
peshat, historical development and the
historical problems of canonization would be in
place. Perhaps it will be possible tomorrow, one more
instance of my shaping my spiritual life in ways that
are idiosyncratic and not accessible to most others.
Indeed, further study and reflection may push me in
this direction. Still, for the time being what I find
in the kabbalistic reading is not the true key to
elevating the Song of Songs beyond its human origins,
but one more instance of the wealth of language
offered by the Song being put to original and
creative uses. Rabbinic, kabbalistic and hassidic
interpretations could thus emerge as a continuum of
applications of a core text, through the application
of a given hermeneutic, that allows new meaning to
emerge, in accordance with spiritual worlds to which
one has grown accustomed to and with which one has
grown comfortable. This I find, only this.
And here my problem emerges with full force — The
Song of Songs is only read for its linguistic
potency, only understood through the lens of the
interpreters, who approached the text with far less
complexity and ambivalence than I do. The Song of
Songs is perhaps unique in this respect. The problems
of its human origins and threatening eroticism are
unique. Its linguistic potential is unique. The lack
of a core religious meaning to which one can refer
and through which one's spiritual life can be
structured is also unique. For what can the Song of
Songs itself offer me? The power of the Song's
language cannot shape my consciousness or orient my
spiritual ways. When the Song's language is refracted
through the interpretive lens of the Rabbis or the
kabbalists it is the theology of the latter, their
teaching and inspiration, that shapes my awareness,
no longer the power of Scripture. This is why the
Song of Songs is so frightening and perplexing. It is
not its eros or its humanity. It is my inability to
establish a core of religious meaning in the text
itself, independently of the creative recasting of
its creative language by later generations. The Song
of Songs therefore doesn't mean anything. It only
means what its interpreters make it mean. If this
danger exists for all of Scripture, it is the
defining feature of the classical interpretation of
the Song of Songs. And if I cannot "think of" the
Song of Songs, how can it ever gain the religious
significance of shaping my awareness as I "think
with" it?
Throughout this essay I have placed myself on the
brink of assenting to a given interpretation of the
Song, were it only that I could be hermeneutically
convinced by it. Whether the love reading, as
expounded by Rav Kook, or the theurgic reading, as
expounded by the Zohar. My inability to acquiesce to
such readings leaves me in the unique position of
loving the great wealth of the Song, its language,
its imagery and evocative quality, while hopelessly
struggling to locate a core of meaning with which I
could resonate religiously. Perhaps I must learn to
let go. Perhaps I must come to realize that this is
precisely the beauty of the Song of Songs. Not the
fact that it celebrates the human body and human
eros, but the fact that it can only be approached
through the celebration of the human power to give
meaning to Scripture. Maybe the Song of Songs is
where I must learn the lesson that meaning resides in
interpretation, rather than in the original intention
of scripture, or in some balance of the two. Maybe
the Song of Songs is where I must accept a wider
meaning of what Scripture is, expanding its meaning
to include the fullest history of interpretation.
Maybe, then, the Song of Songs is where I must learn
how to read Scripture as a Jew? Maybe.
[1] I am aware that various
religious traditions may differ on this point. The
distinction between classical and modern is possibly
stronger in the case of Judaism than in the case of
Christianity and Islam.
[2] Standard descriptions of
the question can be found in introductions to the
Song of Songs, like those of Roland Murphy and Marvin
Pope. See also Sid Z. Leiman, The Canonization
of Hebrew Scripture: The Talmudic and Midrashic
Evidence, Hamden, 1976, and Menahem Haran,
HaAsupa Hamikrait.
[3] Marvin Pope, Song
of Songs, Anchor Bible, New York, 1977, p.
145.
[4] This seems to be the
underlying logic of Arthur Green�s recent study
Shekhina, The Virgin Mary and the Song of Songs,
AJS Review 26,1 2002, pp. 1-52.
[5] Brevard Childs,
Introduction to the Old Testament as
Scripture, Fortress, 1979, p. 571 ff.
[6] The Song is found in
Qumran, but there is no interpretation of it. There
is nothing in Philo’s writings regarding the Song of
Songs.
[7] The list includes Isaak
Heinemann, Ephraim Urbach, Gerson Cohen, Judah
Goldin, Shmuel Safrai, Jacob Neusner, Marc Hirschman,
Art Green and more.
[8] Daniel Boyarin,
Intertextuality and the Reading of Midrash,
Bloomington, 1990, pp. 105-116.
[9] I take sharp issue with a
host of scholars who consider the Rabbis and Origen
to be engaged in the same type of activity, namely:
allegorizing the Song of Songs, the only difference
between them concerning the referents of the
allegory. This key spokesmen for this position are
Ephraim Urbach, Reuven Kimmelman and Menachem
Hirschman. In a recently completed study I take sharp
issue with this classical position, arguing that no
polemic existed over the interpretation of the Song
of Songs. In my understanding, the Rabbis and the
Christian writers are not doing the same thing, hence
the entire basis of the reconstructed polemic is
undermined.
[10] Lieberman had suggested
that the tannaim interpreted the Song of Songs
systematically. Thus, the earliest rabbinic
interpretation would have been systematic, but it
degenerated into eclectic collections. I take issue
with Lieberman in my "Did the Tannaim Interpret the
Song of Songs Systematically? -Lieberman
Reconsidered," Proceedings of the Twelfth
World Congress of Jewish Studies,
forthcoming.
[11] A point beautifully
argued by Joseph Bonsirven S.J., Exegese
Rabbinique et Exegese Paulinienne, Paris, 1939,
pp. 217-8; 224-5, who saw through much of the
standard views on the Song. Yitzhak Heineman,
Darchei Ha’Agada, Jerusalem, 1954, p. 156,
attempts a defence of the standard views.
[12] Readers may wonder how
one should interpret, in light of this suggestion,
Rabbi Akiva’s classical statement that the Song of
Songs is holy of holies. It is conceivable that
according to this understanding of the significance
of the Song of Songs indeed it has no special status.
However, several rabbinic passages suggest that even
according to this understanding, the Song has special
status. Rabbi Akiva’s praise of the song is shifted
from terms of holiness to terms of wisdom. See R.
Eleazar Ben Azariah in Song of Songs Rabba 1.1.1.,
Song of Songs Zuta, Buber p. 2 and p. 7. I will deal
with these texts in greater detail in my future
work.
[13] Song of Songs Rabba
1.11.1; 2.4.1.
[14] Song of Songs Rabba
5.16.6.
[15] Song of Songs Rabba
1,1,11.
[16] Lacuna in the
original.
[17] Completion by
Wertheimer.
[18] Midrash Shir HaShirim,
ed. Yosef Wertheimer, Jerusalem, 1981, p.
3-4.
[19] I know some readers
suggest an opposite vector, whereby the rabbis intend
to eroticize the rest of Scripture. The subject will
have to be debated in another framework.
[20] pace Green, whose
argument seems to imply a continuity between the
rabbinic love allegory and the kabbalistic rereading
of this allegory in terms of intra-divine relations,
thus a different understanding of the function of the
Song of Songs. For this reason, Green devotes the
third part of his article to a comparative study of
the Jewish and Christian reading of the Song of
Songs.
[21] Compare Green, p. 35.
Green himself does not explicitly do so, though his
argument tends in that direction.
© 2003, Society for
Scriptural Reasoning
|
