Canonical texts can be preserved while interpretation voids their operational force.

Evidence

The rabbis kept the text in the canon. They did not delete the verse. They did not declare it abrogated. They preserved it, in the Torah, as written. And then they interpreted it in ways that made operational application impossible. And they explicitly justified this interpretive practice with the line: “d’rosh v’kabel sachar” — “expound it, and receive reward.” The point of the passage, on the rabbinic reading, was the moral instruction it provided when expounded — not the operational legal penalty it appeared to prescribe. — , The Rod and the Child, 2347

Categorization

  • XREF: Parallel to how the rabbinic handling of the rod-verses constrains corporeal practice without deleting them; also echoes the figure-ground interpretive framing. — connects to: Texts impose preferred readings that constrain audience interpretation.; Committed text gains a brutal ascendancy that distorts structural revision. — Hilary Mantel, A Memoir of My Former Self- A Life in…, 1078; By not stipulating a meaning in advance of the analysis, I intend to focus on a broader range of issues. In the process, I will explore the way in which deduction, even in Posner’s sense, may be related to the interpretation of canonical texts. (+3 more)

Broader Connections