Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
RAOS: Numbers 5 in the context of ritualization and textualization of the…
RAOS
: Numbers 5 in the context of ritualization and textualization of the Hebrew Bible
What is the Numbers 5 ritual & how should we read/ study it?
Newer approaches (2000s)
: a description of a ritual that can be read symbolically for the embedded worldview it reveals of the Israelite society through a range of 'newer' theories for analysing a text
Haberman (2000)
:
textual and metaphorical approach
together with a psychoanalytic lens (analyzes both biblical and rabbinic sources)
reads the sotah ritual symbolically
threat of adultery reveals vulnerability in the Israelite society and further systemic objectification of women
Camp (2015)
:
feminist anthropological theory
-- an assertion of the male appropriation of the female cultic role in reproduction
"the law of the controlling priest"
greater emphasis on the context of social changes, specifically the consolidation of priestly rule in the Second Temple period
Liebermann (2023)
:
material-focused approach
-- the ritualized use of a material sacred text bolsters the hierarchy of gender identities constructed by the book of Numbers and the Pentateuch (i.e. a hegemonic masculine identity for the Israelite priesthood & encourages complicit masculinity of laymen and the subjugated feminine identity of women)
view of ritual actions not just as symbolizing sacredness but actually embodying sacredness
interaction with the sacred text & the use of sacred text in ritual > influences and influenced by gender identities
iconic dimension of the sacred text emphasizes the semantic dimension & makes implicit connections with broader symbols of the religion
Traditional biblical interpretation (1970s-1980s)
: a coherent text that describes a ritual enacted by the ancient Israelites that we can access and understand by looking into parallels in the ancient Near Eastern ritual context (where we have
slightly
more evidence
Fishbane (1974):
form-critical analysis
That vv. 29-31 are a subscript that provide a resumptive subscript to vv. 12-14 (that two cases exist: one of the unchaste woman and one of a jealous husband)
Num. 5 as combining both oath and draught-ordeal (to make what is known
de facto
known
de jure
)
McKane (1980)
: the ritual as a trial by ordeal (since it is an ordeal that elicits a verdict) -- a trial where a husband is trying to determine the legitimacy of his unborn child
comparison with the Code of Hammurabi
efficacy based on the holiness of the water (from the temple)
Frymer-Kensky (1984)
: the ritual being a classic purgatory oath (oath itself being the cause of efficacy) and a paradigmatic case of the use of
inclusio
-repeition (headlining & repeating the prime act to include all necessary elements for enactment while maintaining the form of a single narrative focused on the principle act)
possible circumstances: guilty or not guilty
implications of the verdict: prolapsed uterus or conception (the oath being the key factor of efficacy and the drinking of the potion actuates the words of the oath)
Ongoing questions
How are notions of
efficacy
different in Numbers 5 vs. Mishnah Sotah? What does it mean for the ritual to 'work'? For the text to work? Can the ritual work without being enacted? (e.g. performance being limited to a textual level)
What is the turning point/ point where the ritual becomes effective? The woman assenting to the results of the curse? The holiness of the water? The writing of the Lord's name?
What does it mean to read the text
ritually
? Vs.
textually
? Does it really matter?
What theories of ritual can be useful here? E.g. if we apply Smith's theory that ritual represents the idealized reality (hence it is about highlighting the incongruence between the ideal & reality), then this ritual really reflects the lack of control that the husband and priest have (instead of perpetuating their dominance)
What can we say (meaningfully) about the
contexts
of both rituals? The literary context and the social context?
Reading ritual (and Numbers 5) within the Hebrew Bible
Olyan
(2019): argues for a revised definition of “violent rituals” of which Num 5 is one given that it causes physical harm (if guilty) along with psychological and emotional harm (regardless of guilt) through the enactment of the ritual
Argues that Num 5 shows how violent rituals can have both probation and punitive purposes BUT the punitive goals of the ritual is ultimately hinged upon the result of the ‘trial’ (scarce evidence for psychological and emotional distress)
potentially influenced by an elaboration in and reading of the ritual in Mishnah Sotah
Gruenwald
(2003)
defines ritual as a form of
human behavior
that reflects the mind that generates them such that an ‘underlying ideology’ or theology is not necessary for the ritual to be enacted
the process of describing ritual being different from the actual doing of the ritual itself
Balentine
(2020)
a handbook of various essays regarding ritual in the Hebrew Bible, some of which was useful
e.g. Ryan Bonfiglio’s article on
Ritual Objects and Artifacts
(God’s presence mediated through concrete embodiment in the form of ritual objects and sacramental practices), James Watts’ article on
Ritualizing Iconic Jewish Texts
(that iconic ritualization preceded the Torah’s scriptural action & was instrumental in bringing it about)
Klingbeil
(2007)
does not actually clarify or distinguish textual descriptions or prescriptions from the ritual itself
Wright
(2012):
interested in exploring the difficulty of applying theoretical approaches and perspectives to
texts
proposes some options: 1) adapt approaches to literary analysis 2) examine ritual in the narrative context of Priestly-Holiness corpus 3) look at PH in terms of models and theories of ritual change 4) study ritual literature as ritual
*that “what is recommended here is the pursuit of complex analysis where a variety of approaches are brought to bear simultaneously and where the approaches mutually inform one another”
Wright
(2007): argues that there is
no strict dichotomy between ritual and non-ritual activity
but that they exist on a spectrum of being ritualized e.g. that sacrifice is a ritualized version of gift-giving and meals which also take place in a mundane setting
ritual does not function like a language in the sense that it communicates/ expresses meaning
rituals and the texts/ words within rituals serve as metaphors or verbal analogies to advance conceptualization (e.g. hence giving participants control over something threatening or elusive)
What is the Mishnah Sotah ritual & how should we read/ study it?
How to study the sotah ritual?
Destro
(1989): anthropological reading of a ritual that is never performed/ abolished by the sages
the sages have valorized that which contrasts with the rules; a concept of irregularity which originated at the deepest levels made the identity of a society visible
Rosen-Zvi
's criticism: that Destro "adopts a decisively non-textual approach, indiscriminately citing biblical and rabbinic sources as well as Maimonides"
Rosen-Zvi
(2013): read ritual narratives in the Mishnah as a literary genre of itself, that M. Sotah is a "fantasy of total and unbridled control over the female body" incongruous with reality
Boyarin
(2000): that the perceived "feminism" of the abrogation of the sotah ritual also has to be read as part of a larger struggle for power on the part of a new male elite (an assertion of rabbinic power)
distinction between the rabbis and priests as referenced in the ritual (an argument that points back to the social context of the ritual both in Numbers and in the Mishnah)
that the project advances exclusive control over the religious lives of Jews & secures the interpretation of the Torah for their institution (e.g. the discussion on whether the father should teach the daughter Torah)
How is the Mishnah Sotah ritual different from Numbers 5?
Mishnaic innovations in the Mishnah Sotah:
Consideration and clarification of seemingly ambiguous points (e.g. writing materials) -- great emphasis on the feasibility and efficacy?
Increased punitive force (Rosen-Zvi) -- humiliation, presumption of guilt, notion of "suspending merit"
Extensions beyond the Mishnah Sotah
e.g. the discussion of "measure for measure"
Differences/ connections between scholarship on Numbers 5 vs. M. Sotah?
Greater emphasis on the
incongruity
of a ritual carefully delineated then abolished; a ritual that stands out as an anomaly within other Mishnaic laws and narratives
Scholarship about Num 5 focusing on the incongruity of consumption of scripture within the biblical corpus vs. scholarship about M. Sotah focusing on elaboration yet abolition of the violent ritual
Can we really make the same claim of Numbers 5 that "it was never practiced as a ritual" given the general paucity of historical evidence for the rituals and narratives in the Pentateuch?
Greater emphasis in trying to reconcile the M. Sotah with the rest of the Mishnah compared to Numbers 5 in the Pentateuch (perhaps due to the claim of a closed textual world that the Mishnah creates for itself - see
Jacob Neusner
's argument) BUT the Pentateuch is not random!
Questions of canonicity? How do scholars discuss other Temple rituals & how is that different from Num 5? (Potentially consider Quick and Olyan)
The elaboration and innovations made in the M. Sotah (the elements which increase its performativity and emphasize the ritual as a spectacle) -- leading to a greater interest in reading Numbers 5 as a ritual enacted or performed e.g.
Habermann
Potentially an interesting line of thought to pursue: making a typology of scholars who discuss Numbers 5 through an anthropological/ ethnographic lens vs. a textual lens (and to what extent the rabbinic reading has been influential)
*consider: what is the alternative of reading Num 5 in light of the Mishnah Sotah? what other contexts?