Midrash and Midrashic Interpretation

13 Pages·2007·4.24 MB·English

ESSAYS
MIDRASH AND MIDRASHIC INTERPRETATION
Makkot Middot i.
i
Shevu<ot Kinnim '
<Eduyyot Teharot ("Purifications")
'Avodah Zarah Kelim
'Avot 'Ohalot
Horayot Nega'im
Kodoshim ("Sacred Things"): Parah
Zevaf:zim Teharot
Menaf:zot Mikva'ot
J:Iullin Niddah
Bekhorot Makhshirin
'Arakhin Zavim
Temurah Tevul Yom
Keri tot Yadayim
Me'ilah 'Uktzin
Tam id [ YAAKOV ELMAN)
Midrash and Midrashic Interpretation
It is often remarked that what is Jewish about by his name, "had dedicated himself to study
the Bible is not the Bible itself, not even the the Teaching (t orah) of the LORD so as to ob
Hebrew text of the Bible, but the Jewish inter serve it" (Ezra 7.10). The Hebrew word for
pretation of the Bible. And of all the types of "study" used in the verse, lidrosh, has the
Jewish biblical interpretation, none have been same root as midrash. By late antiquity,
identified so closely with the Jewish Bible as midrash had come to designate Bible study in
midrash. Indeed, the two have been so closely general. The Rabbis called their academy a bet
identified that for some, midrash has become midrash, literally "a house of study," and from
a virtual trope for Judaism, a figure for all that such usage, midrash came to be the term the
is distinctive and different about the Jews, Rabbis themselves employed to designate the
their religion, and culture. way they studied Scripture and interpreted its
Midrash is the specific name for the activity meaning.
of biblical interpretation as practiced by the In its primary sense, then, midrash refers to
Rabbis of the land of Israel in the first five cen an activity, a mode of study. Somewhat con
turies of the common era. The Hebrew word fusingly, the same word is also applied to the
derives from the root, d-r-sh, which literally products of that activity, namely, individual
means "to inquire" or "to search after." In the interpretations-a specific midrash of a verse
earlier books of the Bible, the root is used to or word, for example. These midrashic inter
refer to the act of seeking out God's will (e.g., pretations originally circulated and were
Gen. 25.22; Exod. 18.15), particularly through transmitted orally, both in rabbinic schools
consulting a figure like Moses or a prophet and through synagogue sermons. Around the t
or another type of oracular authority. By the 3rd or 4th century CE, the oral traditions of the i
end of the biblical period, the locus for that Rabbis began to be collected in literary an
t
search appears to have settled on the text of thologies, and these collections also came to
the Torah where, it was now believed, God's be known as midrashim, as in Midrash Rab
will for the present moment was to be found. bah, the folio-sized collection of homiletical
Thus the scribe Ezra, we are told in the book midrashim on the Torah which was first pub-
ESSAYS
JEWISH INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE
lished in Constantinople in 1512. For the past to study (lidrosfl) its meaning properly" (Gen.
hundred years, however, some scholars have Rab. 1:14). The imperative facing every Bible
appropriated the word "midrash" as a collec interpreter is, to paraphrase E. M. Forster, to
tive term to describe ancient biblical interpre connect, to find the text's significance for the
tation in general. For example, the French present moment, to make it speak to us now.
scholar Renee Bloch used the term "midrash" Nothing in the Bible is without such signifi
to describe any ancient "meditation on the sa cance. If the interpreter can't find it, the fault
cred texts," an activity that could be found is his or her own, not the Bible's. Akiva's elab
equally in the Aramaic translations of the oration might be called the credo of Jewish
Bible, in many of the books of the Apocrypha biblical interpretation.
and Pseudepigrapha, and in the New Testa In fact, the precise relation of midrash to
ment, as well as in later rabbinic texts. And other types of Jewish biblical interpretation
still more recently, the term has passed into and to Jewish tradition at large involves a
popular circulation as a name for all "cre truly complex set of questions, and these be
ative" interpretations of the Bible that seek to come even more complicated if the relation
move beyond the historical, "original" sense ship of midrash is considered in connection
of the biblical text. In this usage, the word with the competing traditions of Christian
"midrash" stands for everything from novel and Islamic interpretation. Ultimately, these
istic retellings of biblical episodes to post questions boil down to some of the most fun
modernist essayistic explorations of Genesis damental issues that involve the study of bib
and Exodus, New Age homilies, and contem lical interpretation in general, and Jewish in
porary poems that re-imagine the biblical text. terpretation in particular. What does it mean
Language, of course, follows usage, not the to call a type of interpretation like midrash
strictures of scholars. Even if the latter (in "Jewish"? Is there a distinctively or uniquely
cluding myself) would prefer to restrict the "Jewish" way of reading the Bible? Is a Jewish
use of the word "midrash" to the ancient bib reading of the Bible distinguished merely by
lical interpretations of the Rabbis-who, if its content and by the theological beliefs it
they did not invent the term, nonetheless brings to its reading, or is there something in
were the first ones to use it extensively trinsically different about the very procedures
scholars do not control the fates of words. On of interpretation that Jews employ as opposed
the other hand, while contemporary efforts at to those of, say, Christian readers of the Bible?
"neo-midrash" are not direct descendants of Within the context of this Jewish Study Bible,
the classical midrashic tradition of the Rabbis, it would seem especially opportune to con
it is also not entirely inappropriate to call sider these questions even if there are no de
these latter-day compositions living examples finitive answers to them. We may begin with a
of the midrashic "spirit," motivated by some historical sketch of midrash's development.
of the same desires that inspired the Rabbis to The origins of midrash lie in biblical tradition
interpret the Bible. Yet precisely how to define itself where many biblical passages self
that "spirit" is not an easy task. Perhaps the consciously look back upon earlier passages
closest thing to a definition might be the clas and, in one way or another, reinterpret their
sical midrashic statement attributed to the meaning. The book of Chronicles, for exam
early sage Akiva (died ca. 135 CE), a comment ple, consciously recasts the history of the ear
on Deut. 32.47, "[This law] is no empty thing lier books of Samuel and Kings, adding some
for you (lo' davar reik mekem)." Exploiting the episodes and omitting others, and generally
fact that the preposition mekem literally means spinning the earlier narrative in the course of
"from," not "for," you, Akiva explained: "If it retelling it in a politically tendentious .iirec·
seems empty, it is from you-on account of tion amenable to its author. Elsewhere, many
your own failure--for you do not know how "later" verses in the Bible recycle allusions
ESSAYS
MIDRASH AND MIDRASHIC INTERPRETATION
and imagery from "earlier" biblical texts in implying that the meat should be boiled (as in
order to apply them to new contexts and situ a stew). 2 Chron. 35.13, ob\·iously troubled bv
ations. The laws of marital divorce become the discrepanc>· between the h\ro Torah verses,
the·imagery to describe God's punishment of "solved" the textual problem (if not the culi
the people of lsrael (cf., e.g., Deut. 2.ip-4 and nary one) by maintaining both locutions: The
Jer. 3.1); the exodus from Egypt (Exod. chs Jews "cooked the paschal sacrifice in fire" (vny
l-15), the paradigm for all future redemp vasll/11 hnpesnb bn'esll)-"they boiled the pas
tions (see, for e),.ample, Isa. 43.16-20; 51.9-11; chal sacrifice in fire" (which probably means
Ezek. ch 20). that they braised it).
In a ,·ery few cases it is possible even to see The scholar Michael Fishbane, who has ex
how certain textual ''problems" are solved haustively studied these and similar cases in
within the Bible itself. For example, in the year the Bible, has described them as part of a
605 BCE, some twenty years before the destruc larger phenomenon which he calls inner
tion of the First Temple and the exile of the Ju biblical exegesis (see "Inner-biblical Interpre
deans to Babylonia, the prophet Jeremiah tation," pp. 1829-35). Although most of these
prophesied that Judea "shall be a desolate examples are not, strictly speaking, exegeses
ruin, and those nations shall serve the king of (insofar as they do not explain or clarify any
Babylon se\'enty years" (Jer. 25.11 ). Ln a sec thing about the earlier verse), they nonethe
ond prophecy, somewhat later, he went on to less exhibit certain tendencies-inner dynam
prophesy that ''when Babylon's seventy years ics, as it were-that are, at the least, exegetical
are O\·er, I will fulfill to you My promise of reflexes. These include the tendencies (as we
favor-to bring you back to this place" (29.10). have seen) to harmonize conflicting or discor
And some se,·enty years later, in 538 BCE, dant verses; to reemploy and reapply biblical
when the Judean exiles did indeed return to paradigms and imagery to new cases; to rein
Judea from Babylonia, they must doubtless vest "old" historical references with "new"
have behe\'ed that Jeremiah's prophecy had historical contexts; and to integrate nonhistor
been fulfilled. Some 370 years later, however, ical portions of the Bible within the larger
around the year 165 BCE, in despair over the context of biblical history (for example, by
Hellenistic persecution of their religious prac giving individual psalms historical super
tices, Jews had greater difficulty believing in scriptions that "identify" the precise biblical
the fulfillment of Jeremiah's promise of re episode during which David composed the
demption even if they were physically living psalm; e.g., Pss. 18 and 34).
in the land of Israel. The author of the book of Once the Bible wa~ closed, Fishbane argues,
Daniel. in order to bolster faith in the apoca these inner-biblical tendencies emerged as
lypse he belie,·ed was imminent, reinterpreted full-fledged, consciously applied interpretive
Jeremiah's earlier prophecy so that seventy techniques (demonstrating, if nothing else,
years became seventy "weeks" of years-490 the deep continuity of early postbiblical inter
years, in other words-a date that brought pretation with the preceding tradition). Our
the ancient prophecy close enough to his earliest genuine commentaries on the Bible
own time so as to com·ince his audience of its are the peshnri111, or apocalyptic commen
truth. Or to g1,·e a second example of a differ taries, found among the Dead Sea Scrolls at
ent type of ''interpretation," here is a case Qumran, and the allegorical treatises on the
where two earlier verses seemed to a later bib Bible written b\· Philo of Alexandria. The \·ast
lical author to contradict each other: Exod. 12.8 amount of early postbiblical interpretation is
stipulate~ emphatically that the Passover sac found, however, not in formal commentaries
rifice must be roasted <tzli 'eshJ. Speaking but in noncxegetical works that span the en
about the same sacrifice, however, Deut. 16.7 tire range of ancient postbiblical Je,vish litera
says, "You shall cook (1 1vishnltn) it"- a verb ture. These include the Aramaic Targumim (or
-186;-
ESSAYS
JEWISH INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE
translations); the various works of the Apoc type of hermeneutical technique in midrash
rypha and Pseudepigrapha which claim to wherein the numerical sum of a word's letters
"fill in" missing episodes or accounts from the is used to decode its meaning. A good exam
Bible; and the various types of compositions ple of this type of technique is an interpreta
sometimes called "the Re-Written Bible," tion attributed to R. Levi for the word 'ekhnh
works like the Genesis Apocn;plwn, the book of ("alas"), the first word in the book of Lamen
jubilees, and Pseudo-Philo's Biblical Antiqui tations, a book that the Rabbis read not onlv
ties. These last works claim merely to "retell" as a lament but also as a prophecy of the d~­
the biblical narrative. They do so, however, by struction of the Temple. The numerical sum of
= = =
adding in, without comment, numerous de the word's four letters (nlef 1; yod 10; kaf
tails and events nowhere to be found in the 20; lzeh = 5) is 36, and this number, according
Bible itself that are really implied interpreta to R. Levi, points to the 36 transgressions pun
tions, that is, solutions to "problems" ancient ishable by excommunication that the Jews
readers may have had with the biblical text. committed, thereby bringing upon them
Such is the context within which rabbinic selves the destruction of the Temple. The un
midrash emerged in Roman Palestine as one usual word 'ekhnlz, with its archaic elon
type of Jewish exegesis among many others in gated form (rather than the shorter, more
the first centuries of the common era. We common 'eklz) was understood, in other
know very little about the inner history of words, to be the hermeneutical key to the
midrash or about its practice, presumably in meaning of the entire scroll of ~amenta­
schools, academies, and synagogues. The one tions-the reason the Jews were forced to la
1.
I thing we do know is that, with a few scattered ment their fate. Along the same lines, in a
exceptions, the Rabbis did not explicitly theo related but different form of interpretation
rize about their mode of interpretation or for notnrikon (literally, stenographic interpreta
mally legislate its procedures. As a result, tion), or interpretation by acrostics-ben
1
I
nearly everything we can say about midrash Azzai used the same word's four letters as a
must be adduced from the texts themselves. key to showing that the Jews were not pun
Generally speaking, the underlying inter ished until they had denied the One (alej)
pretive assumptions that the Rabbis brought God; transgressed all Ten (yod) Command
to midrash were not different from those of ments; spurned circumcision (which was
their nonrabbinic contemporaries, Jewish or given after twenty [ka_n generations), and-on
Gentile. As scholars have shown repeatedly top of everything else!-rejected all the com
over the last century, the Rabbis shared her mandments in the Five (lze/z) Books of Moses.
meneutical techniques and procedures with Both types of hermeneutical principles are at
their Greco-Roman neighbors as well as with tested in ancient handbooks for dream
the larger and more ancient Near Eastern cul interpreters.
ture into which ancient Judaism was born. Beyond these particular techniques, how
Midrash dealing with halakhah, or legal mat ever, nearly all ancient readers of the Bible also
ters, uses many of the same hermeneutical shared four basic beliefs about the nature of
principles used by Greek and Roman jurists, Scripture, as James Kugel has cogently argued.
and the Rabbis seem to have borrowed at First, they believed that the Bible was essen
least the names for some of those principles tially a cryptic document-that its true mean
from their pagan contemporaries. In the realm ing was not to be found on the surface but had
of aggadah-narrative and lore-midrash ap to be discovered within the text, and that this
plied to the Bible techniques known to be discovery required special skills and wisdom.
used in ancient literary and dream interpreta (In this, ancient readers of the Bible would
tion. Such, for example, seems to be the origin have found themselves in agreement with an
of gemntrin, perhaps the most "notorious" cient philosophers for whom it was no less ax-
- 1866-
ESSAYS
MIDRASH AND MIDRASHIC INTERPRETATION
iomatic that all truth is obscure, never obvious folk wisdom and lore. Midrash itself is part of
or manifest to all; otherwise, anybody could be the Oral Torah, but the most important fact
a philosopher or, for that matter, a scriptural for understanding the role of the Oral Torah in
exegete!) Second, the Bible was believed to be midrash is that, for the Rabbis, these two
a perfect document, without contradiction, in Torahs-the Written and the Oral-were un
consistency, or superfluity. What might seem derstood to be complementary. The "rele
to be a contradiction or to be superfluous, even vance" of the Written Torah for the Rabbis lay,
a word or phrase, was really an occasion-for we may say, in its application as Oral Torah;
some, a tip-off-for interpretation. Third, the the two were not only in absolute agreement
Bible is always relevant-that is to say, its true but deeply intertwined and mutually embed
meaning is always one that has import for ded. As a result, a great part of the Rabbis'
the present moment. Nothing in the Bible midrashic efforts are devoted either to finding
neither genealogies nor prophecies-is in the roots of the Oral Torah in the Written
Scripture for purely historical reasons, pre Torah, or to elucidating the hidden truths of
served for its antiquarian interest alone. the Written Torah so as to make it yield the in
Fourth, the Bible was believed to be of divine sights of what they already knew to be Oral
origin. As Kugel notes, however, this last fea Torah.
ture was probably the least simple, since the Nowhere is this more evident than in
Bible's divinity was not seen necessarily to midrash halakhah, or legal exegesis. One pas
preclude Moses' authorship. Furthermore, at sage will suffice to illustrate the point-a se
tributing divinity to the Bible means little if ries of interpretations connected with the
one does not define the nature of that divinity laws of kashrut, the dietary laws, and specifi
more closely. The God whom the Rabbis be cally the regulations pertaining to the separa
lieved authored the Bible was hardly the same tion of meat and milk products. Few laws are
author as the God of an early Christian reader more closely associated with classical Juda
of the Bible like Origen. ism. Yet the source of these laws is a single in
Still, while the Rabbis shared these assump junction in the entire Bible, "You shall not boil
tions about the Bible with other ancient read a kid in its mother's milk" (Exod. 23.19)
ers, Jews and Christians alike, they also which, as we know today, was originally a
1¥ought some distinctive convictions of their cultic regulation, not a dietary rule. Curiously,
own to their study. First and foremost, the that injunction also happens to be repeated
Rabbis believed that the Bible-or what they verbatim twice more in the Bible (Exod. 34.26;
called the Written Torah-was only one of Deut. 14.21), raising the additional problem of
two revelations God had given to the children the verses' superfluity: Why say the same
of Israel at Mt. Sinai. Alongside the Written thing three times? Not surprisingly, the Rab
Torah, they believed, God had also revealed bis exploited the multiple appearances of the
to the Israelites an Oral Torah which, as its injunction in order to expand the range of the
name indicates, was delivered and transmit single law. In the Mekhilta (Kaspa 5, Lauter
ted orally. Precisely how to define the Oral bach III, 187-190), the earliest collection of
Torah is one of the great debates among Jew midrashim on the book of Exodus, nine inter
ish scholars. For our present purposes we pretations are offered to explain why the
may say that it comprises everything that the verse is repeated, and seven more simply to
Rabbis believed was "Judaism" that is not ex explain the full significance of the Exodus
plicitly written in the Torah; admittedly, this is verse alone. Here is a small sampling of the
a vast and heterogeneous body of material interpretations:
that encompasses everything from the many
laws not spelled out in the Bible to the Rabbis' R Jonathan says: Why is this law stated in
own beliefs and theology as well as al1 their three places? Once to apply to domestic an-
ESSAYS
JEWISH INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE
imals, once to apply to the beast of chase, and even deriving benefit from it (by, for ex
and once to apply to fowl. ample, selling meat and milk cooked to
Abba I::Ianin said in the name of R. Elie gether); this interpretation takes the biblical
zer: Why is this law stated in three places? verse even closer to the complete dietary reg
Once to apply to large cattle, once to apply ulation in its full rabbinic form.
to goats, and once to apply to sheep .... Now clearly, these opinions are being used
R. Simon ben Yol:mi says: Why is this law to justify and to legitimate existing practices,
stated in three places? One is a prohibition which must have developed out of their own
against eating it, one is a prohibition logic. The interpretations were not invented
against deriving any benefit from it, and to derive the practices anew or for the first
one is a prohibition against the mere cook time. There is simply no way that any inter
ing of it ... preter could have looked at the three identical
R. Yosi the Galilean: Scripture says, "You verses and extrapolated from them the differ
shall not eat anything that dies a natural ent prohibitions that, say, R. Simon bar Yol:iai
death" (Deut. 14.21), and in the same pas proposes. With the fourth and final interpreta
sage, it is said, "You shall not boil a kid in tion of R. Yosi the Galilean, however, the in
its mother's milk." [From this it follows terpretations take a very different tum. The
that] the flesh of any animal which is for very form and style of Yosi' s interpretation is
bidden to be eaten if the animal dies a natu of a very different nature than the first three
ral death (and is not ritually slaughtered ac not only more expansive but also more aca
cording to the laws of kashrut] is also demic in tone. The interpretation is based on
forbidden to be cooked with milk. Now one the fact that Deut. 14.21 contains not only the
might think that fowl, since it becomes for prohibition against boiling a kid in its
bidden to eat if it dies a natural death, mother's milk but also the additional prohibi
should also be forbidden to be cooked with tion against eating an animal that has died a
milk Scripture, however, stipulates, "in its natural death and not been ritually slaugh
mother's milk." This excludes fowl because tered. From the fact that the two prohibitions
it has no mother's milk. And the unclean are stated in the same verse, R. Yosi initially
animal [an animal like pig that Scripture hypothesizes that all animals that fall under
forbids one to eat in any case] is also ex one prohibition should fall under the other
cluded from the prohibition [of cooking it one as well. This would seem to be a
with milk] because it is forbidden to be completely unexceptionable assumption, but
eaten whether it is ritually slaughtered R. Yosi himself immediately argues against
properly or whether it dies a natural death. it-and here the real gist of his interpretation
emerges. For the verse prohibiting boiling a
The first two opinions in the passage use "the kid in milk explicitly states that the milk must
extra verses" -the multiple occurrences of the be "its mother's," thereby excluding fowl
verse-to extend its application from a goat, from the prohibition since, as R. Yosi explains,
the actual subject of the verse, to other species they do not give milk. Similarly, he continues,
of animals. R. Jonathan and Abba I:fanin both an unclean animal-that is, an animal like pig
adopt the same interpretive strategy, but they that cannot be eaten under any circum
divide the animal kingdom in different cuts, stances-also does not fa:runder the prohibi
as it were. The third opinion, of Rabbi Simon tion, which is to say, it could be boiled in its
ben Yol:iai, uses the extra verses to extend the mother's milk as long as one didn't eat it!
prohibition from cooking milk and meat to The structure of argument in this interpre
gether (which is itself already an interpreta tation is very different from that in the first
tion, since the biblical verse prohibits only three. Essentially, R. Yosi builds upon the con
cooking a kid in its mother's milk) to eating it tiguity of the two prohibitions in the same
-1868-
ESSAYS
MIDRASH AND MIDRASHIC INTERPRETATION
verse to draw a general principle, and then the time of their conception to their mature
uses that generalization to highlight a specific middle age. This rivalry began in utero. Re
detail in the same verse ("its mother's milk") bekah, like all the matriarchs, cannot ini
to prove an exception to the generalization. tially conceive, but once she does become
This technique (in Hebrew known as kclal pregnant with the two boys, Scripture tells us,
uferat, a general rule followed by a particular) vayitrotzetzu habanim bekirbah, "the children
is one of the legal principles that the Rabbis struggled in her womb" (Gen. 25.22). On this
share in common with ancient jurists in gen phrase, Gen. Rab., the classical midrash on
eral. Yet even Ill.-!'re striking about Yosi's inter Genesis, offers the following four interpreta
pretation, which excludes fowl from the prohi tions:
bition, is the fact that it conflicts with that of
R. Jonathan, who did include fowl under the R. Yol;anan and R. Shimon ben Lakhish
prohibition. Exactly what is at stake in this [both offered opinions]. R. Yol;anan said:
disagreement is intriguing but unclear This one ran (ratz) to kill the other, and the
whether their dispute really extends to prac other ran (ratz) to kill the first one. [Namely,
tice (for some contemporary Jewish readers, it R. Yol;anan associates the word va
would be wonderful news to learn that a great yitrotzetzu with the word for "run" (ratz).]
sage like R. Yosi ate chicken with dairy prod R. Shimon ben Lakhish said: This one
ucts!), or whether it is a purely theoretical, ac permitted [what was forbidden] by com
ademic argument. The more relevant observa mand (hitir tzivuyav) to the other, and the
tion to make is that the editor of the midrashic other one permitted [what was forbidden]
collection himself makes no note of the dis by command to the first [meaning, in other
agreement. He records the hvo interpretations words, that from the beginning each one's
along with the others as though there were laws and practices seem to have been dia
absolutely no significant difference between metrically opposed, in conflict with each
them, no disagreement, no inconsistency. other. The interpretation puns vayitrozetzu
This feature is common to the editing of and hitir tzivuyav; say the two words
many midrashic collections, but nowhere is it quickly, and they'll begin to sound alike.]
more the case than in midrash aggadah, that R. Berechyah said in the name of R. Levi:
is, interpretations dealing with legend and Lest you think that it was only after they
lore, the vast terrain of nonlegal and homileti left the womb that the one attacked the
cal material which effectively includes every other, [this verse teaches us] that even
thing in rabbinic tradition from narrative to while they were in the womb [Esau] raised
theology. In theory, midrash aggadah does his fist (zeirteih) against [Jacob]. This is what
not differ substantively or methodologically is written, "The wicked are defiant (zoru)
from midrash halakhah, and most midrashic from the womb" (Ps. 58.4) [playing on the
collections mix halakhah and aggadah indis word zoru and the Aramaic word for fist.
criminately. As rabbinic literature developed, This interpretation seems to emphasize the
however, midrash became increasingly identi word bekirbah, "in her womb" as the basis
fied with aggadah, and it is for its aggadic in for its interpretation.]
terpretations that midrash has become most "Vayitrotzetzu haba;zim bekirbah" ("the
famous (or infamous, depending on your per children struggled in her womb") means
spective) for its creative, playful, and multiple that they tried to run out of her womb.
interpretations. When Rebekah passed by a pagan temple,
As a typical example of such multiple inter Esau would kick her to let him leave; this is
pretations, consider the following passage. what is written, "The wicked are defiant
Gen. 25.19-36.42 is largely devoted to the (zoru) from the womb" (Ps. 58-4) [playing
story of Jacob and Esau and their rivalry from on the word zoru and the second half of the
-1869-
ESSAYS
JEWISH INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 1
term 'avodah zarah, literally "strange wor emy. From such repeated auditory experi c
ship," i.e., idolatry]. And when Rebekah ences, one assumes the Rabbis memorized the s
passed by a synagogue and a study-hall scriptural text and carried it around in their I
(bet midrash), Jacob would kick her to let heads as a heard text. As we now know, a text
l
him out, this is what is written, "Before I learned this way is "known" differently than I
created you in the womb, I knew you one learned from having read it on a page (or
'
(yedatikha)" (Jer. i.5) [probably reading the scroll). For one thing, the page itself does not
(
last phrase as yidatikha, "I caused you to figure as a primary unit in one's memory of l:
know") (Gen. Rab., ed. J. Theodor and H. the text. Another thing is that one "hears" the
f
Albeck, 63:6, pp. 682-83). text rather than "sees" it (even in the mind's
eye), and as a consequence, one is more likely
Each of these four interpretations offers a to associate like-sounding words or phrases
slightly different though equally typical mid or verses (the latter probably having been the r
rashic way of reading the word vayitrotzetzu: main units of memorization) rather than those
Some break it up into smaller words like mt':. connected by visual elements (either physical
("run"), or pun it with a similarly sounding proximity in the written text or on a page, or
phrase like hitir tzivuyav ("permitted the com matters of orthography). And while it may
mands"), or connect the Genesis base-verse seem paradoxical, it is in fact perfectly expli
with another verse in Scripture (e.g., Ps. 584) cable why the Rabbis tend to atomize verses
which, through more punning interpreta or words into their constituent sounds, and si
tions, is enlisted to gloss the meaning of the multaneously to associate otherwise unre
base-verse. In the very last interpretation of lated verses or phrases on the basis of shared
Jer. 1.5, the anonymous Rabbi exploits the fact phonetic elements; in both cases, they are re
that the Hebrew text of the Bible in a Torah sponding to the phonetic/ aural element of
scroll records only consonantal letters, and no the text. This is not to say that the Rabbis did
vowels-a fact that, somewhat ironically, now not know the Bible as a written text; it was, in
allows the midrashic reader to change the fact, the only text normatively written down
vowels of certain biblical words and thus in rabbinic culture. It was, however, also the
their meaning, as here from the active form, only text in rabbinic culture to be regularly
yedatikha ("I knew") to the causative yidatikha read aloud from the written scroll. Indeed, the
("I caused you to know"). Bible's most common name in rabbinic He
What leads the Rabbis to base so many of brew is miqra', "that which is read aloud."
their interpretations on phonetic puns, on Midrash, then, is very much an exegesis of
associations between the sound of a word the heard text. This does not, of course, explain
like vayitrotzetzu and other similarly sounding everything in midrash. For while they are
words and phrases? In part, this strongly willing to take the boldest liberties in inter
aural dimension of midrash may derive from preting Scripture, the Rabbis are also the clos
the Bible's own use of oral puns and sound est "readers" of Scripture imaginable, with an
play-a habit facilitated by the very nature of almost preternatural sensitivity to the least
spoken Hebrew-but it also probably reflects "bump" in the scriptural text-an unneces
the way the Bible was learned by the Rabbis. sary repetition or superfluity, any kind of syn
Most likely, Jews in the land of Israel during tactical or lexical peculiarity, a mere hint at
the rabbinic period did not study the Bible by something unseemly in the way of behavior,
reading it directly in scrolls, which were or the smallest possibility of an inconsistency
doubtless scarce and, because of their size, between verses or even between a verse and
rather unwieldy; rather, they learned Scrip what the Rabbis believed must be the case.
ture from hearing it read aloud during the Since we have been considering Jacob and
synagogue service or in classes in the acad- Esau, let us look at an interpretation of an-
-
·s ESSAYS
MIDRASH AND MIDRASHIC INTERPRETATION
ri other verse from their narrative, from the conscious dissonance between what the Rab
he story in Gen. ch 27 of Jacob's deception of bis knovv the Bible is saying, and what they
:=ir Isaac, where he fools his aged blind father wish it to say. This is undoubtedly true: What
into giving him the blessing intended for midrash continually demonstrates is the pos
~xt
an Esau, the first-born son. Jacob's wiliness (of sibility that Scripture may mean something
which this episode was not the first case) may other than what it says. But there is also a way
:or
or may not have been in itself a cause for em in which the playfulness of midrash may be
lOt
of barrassment to the Rabbis, but Gen. 27.19 interpreted as the Rabbis' sense of the playful
he posed a very concrete problem for them. In re ness of Scripture itself. After all, could God
:i's sponse to Isaac's question, "Which of my sons have ever really allowed Jacob to mislead
are you?" Jacob tells his father an outright lie, Isaac and let the blessing be given to the
~ly
;es "I am Esau, your first-born." How does the wrong son? Could Isaac, our ancestor, have
:he midrash deal with this problem? been so easilv misled? Must he not have
_,
The answer is quite simple: By rereading known to whom he was giving the blessing?
)Se
cal the verse so that it no longer says, "I am Esau, Were not Isaac and Jacob merely pretending to
or your first-born" but "I am [that is, Jacob]; deceive and to be deceived? Isn't this pretence
Esau is your first-born" (Tn11(1., ed. S. Buber, at deception the subtext of the story in \·vhich
Genesis, p. 131). Now this interpretation may Isaac and Jacob act out their roles of deceiver
;es seem overly clever, especially as an attempt to and deceived so that providential history, the
si whitewash Jacob's reputation, but in fact the history of Israel and of the Jews, can take
re interpretation exploits a genuine "problem" place despite history?
ed in the verse. For why does Jacob need to tell The Rabbis, after all, fully kne\v who Jacob
re his father that Esau is his first-born son? As an and Esau really were-not just biblical figures,
of answer to Isaac's question, the detail is irrele not merely their ancestors. They were also the
lid vant; and as a piece of familial information, it progenitors of Israel and Rome-the latter
m is obviously something Isaac knmvs. Further, was almost as ancient an identification as the
vn the Hebrew word that Jacob uses in the verse former-and, in a certain sense, they were Ju
he to identify himself, 'anokhi, "I," is itself note daism and Rome. "The voice is the voice of
·Iv worthy as a somewhat archaic locution that Jacob, yet the hands are the hands of Esau,"
he every Rabbi would have instantly recognized Isaac announces as the disguised Jacob
[e- as the opening word of the Decalogue-in approaches (Gen. 27.22). On \·vhich the mid
deed, as the word with \Vhich God introduces rash comments: "Jacob attains domination
of Himself: "I am/'anokhi the LORD your God" through his voice [i.e., the power of lan
.in (Exod. 20.2). (In fact, another, somevvhat more guage], and Esau through [the power of] his
;re expansive version of this midrash states that hands." R. Yehuda bar llai is said to have
Jacob said, "I am he who will receive the added that R. Judah the Prince interpreted the
~r-
)S Decalogue, but Esau is your first-born" [Gen. latter verse in even more contemporary terms:
an Rab. 65:18, p. 730).) Faced with all these tex "The voice of Jacob cries out for what the
1st tual "facts," along with the ethical problem hands of Esau have done to him" (Gen. Rab.
raised by Jacob's outright lie, the midrashic 65:21, pp. 733-34, 740). The Rabbis knew that
~s-
n reading might appear almost inevitable. the story of Jacob and Esau and their rivalry
a t Almost, but not quite. Did the Rabbis be was not simply biblical history. It was also
Jr, lieve that this was the "real" meaning of the their own history, the contemporary reality in
verse, or what Jacob actually meant to say? which they had to struggle daily merely to
This question takes us to the very heart of survive.
midrash and its hermeneutics. Some scholars With this understanding of the hermeneuti
have suggested that midrashim like this are cal background behind midrash, let us return
n- midrashic "jokes," the humor lying in the self- to the question with which we began this
ESSAYS
JEWISH INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE
essay: What is Jewish about midrash? It only that its view of midrash is overly roman
would be tempting to say that interpretations ticized but that it fails to take into account the
like the preceding one, identifying Jacob with fact that midrash is itself a form of allegory
Judaism and Esau with Rome, point to the in not philosophical allegory, to be sure, but
herently Jewish nature of midrash. This is cer nonetheless a form of interpretation that seeks
tainly true of the content of the interpretation, to show how the text means something other
but it is worth recalling that ancient and me than what it says. In this, midrash is not dif
dieval Christian students of the Bible used the ferent from other types of ancient interpreta
same hermeneutical principle to identify tion. There is, in fact, much in early Christian
Jacob with the church and Esau with Judaism. interpretation from the New Testament itself
The same is true by and large of the ancient through Augustine and the Antiochene fa
Jewish and Christian interpretations of the thers that is midrash-like. The main herme
Song of Songs; both traditions interpret the neutical difference betvveen the two is that
poem as a love song between God and His Christian exegesis is far more systematic. Be
chosen nation-the major difference being cause of its greater intimacy with classical
that in one case the beloved nation is Israel, in philosophical culture, Christian interpreta
l
the other Christianity (or the church). ls the tion is hea\'ily theorized and more program
difference between Jewish and Christian in matic (and to that extent, more obviously ten
I
terpretation then merely one of theological dentious than rabbinic interpretation). It is
preferences? also driven, as it were, by a different set of 'I
Some scholars have posited the differences anxieties. The main anxiety for Christian
t
between the two interpretive traditions as interpreters is the knowledge that the New
being that between midrash and allegory. In Testament is indeed a belated document, a I
j
fact, over the past twenty years, as they have late-comer, as it were, and hence the main
awakened to the existence of midrash, literary challenge faced by Christian exegetes is to
theorists in particular have sought to see in prove that the New Testament is in fact the
rabbinic hermeneutics an alternative mode of key to understanding the Old Testament, and
interpretation to allegory. Where the latter is that the latter cannot properly be understood
said to posit the existence of a reference or without the full knowledge afforded by the
meaning "behind" the text as a kind of static New Testament. In contrast, the anxiety driv
metaphysical presence, midrash has been cel ing the Rabbis is the worry that the Bible itself
ebrated for seeing meaning "in front" of the foresees their rejection and obsolescence;
text, in the intertextual play between verses, hence the constant challenge they face is to
in the deferral of a single absolute meaning in find through midrash a way for God to ad
favor of a multiplicity of provisional and pos dress them anew, to prove through the study
sible meanings, and not least of all, for its far of Scripture that they remain His chosen
I
more open complicity between the interpreter people, and that their interpretation, as em
and the act of interpretation as a subjective ex bodied in the Oral Torah, is in fact the true
ercise whose interest lies less in the outcome and legitimate interpretation of the Bible's
of interpretation than in the process itself. meaning.
'
Some scholars have even identified midrash The other feature that truly distinguishes
with a kind of uniquely Jewish "ontology," or rabbinic midrash is its singular literary form,
at least a mode of thinking whose difference the modes of discourse in which its herme
from the so-called Greco-Christian logocen neutics are articulated. These literary forms
tric tradition, usually identified with allegory, show the close connection between rabbinic
has been seen as closer to that of poststruc interpretation of the Bible and synagogue
turalism. homilies. The most characteristic of all these
The difficulty with this comparison is not forms is the proem or petibfa, a form that may