Book: Michael Fishbane's Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (New York: Oxford, 1988).
In Fishbane Paper: Authoritative Law Code?, I referred to Michael Fishbane's interaction with the idea that ancient Near Eastern law codes were not real laws for real life. Fishbane acknowledges that this is a "growing consensus" position. But he often treats the biblical laws as Israel's law code, as if they needed interpretation because of questions the community posed. He even calls some of the interpretations "responsa," which are rabbinic answers to Jewish questions on observance (262).
Of course, Fishbane may say that he's calling them responsa because that's what they are in the biblical narrative (see Leviticus 24:10ff.; Numbers 9; 15:32ff; 27; 36Lev 25). But there are places where he assumes that interpretation responds to a living community. Leviticus 25 forbids the Israelites to harvest in the seventh and fiftieth years. In vv 20-22, we see the following inquiry and answer:
"Should you ask, What shall we eat in the seventh year, if we may not sow or gather in our crop? I will order my blessing for you in the sixth year, so that it will yield a crop for three years. When you sow in the eighth year, you will be eating from the old crop; until the ninth year, when its produce comes in, you shall eat the old" (NRSV).
Fishbane said that the law imposed a burden on the agricultural community, so the scribes wrote this response to address that group's concern (168).
But does exegesis have to relate to real laws for a real community? Fishbane acknowledges that the Code of Hammurapi contains elaboration and clarification of laws (233). I thought most scholars believed Hammurapi's code was theoretical and not for real life. Yet, it could still be interpreted, even if it wasn't the code of a living community. Perhaps that occurred as part of an academic exercise.