Search
Program Calendar
Browse By Day
Browse By Time Slot
Browse By Person
Browse By Room
Browse By Division
Browse By Session Type
Search Tips
Conference Home Page
Conference Program Overview
Sponsors & Exhibitors
Plan Your Stay
Personal Schedule
Sign In
Some scholars have recently suggested that the categories "halakha" (law) and "aggada" (narrative) should be abandoned in the study of rabbinic literature since they are so porous (law as narrative and narrative as law) as to misrepresent the nature of rabbinic legal and narrative discourse. I will argue that the categories and the distinctions between them are "native" to early rabbinic literature (in a way that other imposed dichotomies are not, e.g., realism and nominalism), and, therefore, should not be too readily discarded. The distinction between midrash halakha and midrash aggada is a worthwhile one to retain, even if reconfigured. The very porousness of the categories should be highlighted, as, I will argue, they are in several early rabbinic texts, especially midrashic ones, to be explored in this talk. I shall analyze texts that themselves emphasize the dynamic intersection of the two modes of midrashic (and by extension, mishnaic) discourse. In short, I will argue that "difference" can and should be celebrated without it becoming "dichotomy."