Brief Introduction to Midrash
Since Rashi relies heavily on Midrashic sources, either verbatim or by editing and modifying them, dealing with Midrash is inescapable when analyzing Rashi. The way the term Midrash is used today is very vague and broad, as is the perception of its origin and authority. I would like to present here a brief introduction to Midrash to provide a point of reference to these cases where we will analyze the Midrash used by Rashi.
The meaning of the term Midrash
The word Midrash is derived from the verb דרש which means to demand, seek out, or investigate. For example ותלך לדרש את ה' – she [Rivka] sought out God’s word (Gen. 25:22); כי יבוא אלי העם לדרש אלקים – the people come to me to seek [the word of] God (Ex. 18:15); ודרשת וחקרת ושאלת היטב – you shall seek out, investigate, and question (Deut. 13:15). In that sense, the word Midrash originally meant seeking out the meaning of the text and referred to the exegetical process. This process is intrinsic to our use of language since we have to constantly interpret the meaning of oral or written text. For example, the sign “Exit” could mean a noun or an imperative. Usually we determine the meaning based on context, logic, or previous knowledge, but there are certain situations where we are left perplexed. The more complicated the text, the greater is the number of possible interpretations, and this is especially true when dealing with a legal text. Take for example, the questions we can ask on a verse dealing with the obligation of sitting in the Sukkah - כל האזרח בישראל ישבו בסכת (Lev. 23:42): The word כל – all, is inclusive, so who is included? Who falls under the category of אזרח – citizen, dweller, Israelite? Does the word בישראל – in Israel, refer to a place or to an entity, i.e., the land or people of Israel? Does ישבו mean to sit or to dwell? And finally, which structures fulfil the requirement of בסכת – in Sukkahs? What are the materials, measurements etc.?
This example belongs to the realm of Midrash Halakha, which is the linguistic interpretation of the legal part of the Torah. Similarly, there is a category called Midrash Aggadah, which in its strict definition includes only text-based interpretations of the narrative part of the Torah.
Today, the term Midrash is loosely used to describe all non-halakhic material, and this is how it will be used in this work, but as we shall see soon, there are other categories of Aggadah material which are not Midrash.
1. Background for the creation of Midrash:
a. Natural development:
The first layer of Torah interpretation was probably focused on the halakhic part, as it was the most essential for observing the law. The next step was developing a linear interpretation, more like a translation, of the whole text, including the non-halakhic parts. Finally, once the law was understood and the meaning of the words deciphered, the rabbis moved to the next stage of expanding on the narrative parts of the Torah. In the first phase of this stage, they used the same techniques and tools which were used with the halakhic material, but because the narrative is not as rigid as halakha, they were able to expand it to more innovative and creative ways. This trajectory is evident in the content of Midrashic material: the most ancient are Halakhic Midrashim, and then there are dictionary-like Midrashim on the narrative, followed by proliferation of Aggadic material.
b. Post-Destruction Reaction:
The Second Temple period was one of political upheavals, bloody wars, and internal strife. The relative peace of the first half of that period under the Persian rule ended with the Greek invasion. The Jews, who were not all willing to embrace Hellenistic culture, rebelled and succeeded to guarantee some autonomy, but the Hasmonean dynasty came to a quick and cruel decline, and the tragedy culminated with the Roman occupation, the destruction of the Temple and the losses in three consecutive revolts against the Romans (in 67-70, 112-115, and 132-135 CE). The religious leaders felt the need to provide the people with inspiring and uplifting messages and started developing a literature to meet that goal. This situation is attested to in the words of 3rd century sage, Rav Yitzhak (Pesikta DeRav Kahana, 12):
בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה הָיְתָה הַפְּרוּטָה מְצוּיָה, הָיָה אָדָם מִתְאַוֶּה דְּבַר מִשְׁנָה וְדָבָר תַּלְמוּד, וְעַכְשָׁו שֶׁאֵין פְּרוּטָה מְצוּיָה, וּבְיוֹתֵר שֶׁאָנוּ חוֹלִים מִן הַמַּלְכִיּוֹת, אָדָם מִתְאַוֶּה לִשְׁמֹעַ דְּבַר מִקְרָא וּדְבַר אַגָּדָה
Previously, people had money, and they desired to hear Mishna and Talmud, but now that they have no money, and not only that but we are sick because of the [Roman] government, people desire to hear verses and Aggadah.
c. Reaction to Hellenism:
Finally, an extremely important catalyst in the development of Midrash was the need to respond to Greek culture. Alexander the Great believed in expanding his empire by spreading its culture. He encouraged his soldiers and officers to settle in the conquered lands, marry local wives, and import their culture and religion to their new homeland. Indeed, many of the subjugated religions developed a dual cult of Greek and local deities. The Jews were the only ones who resisted the foreign, pagan religion, since they had a rich trove of knowledge and wisdom literature and have already abandoned the idolatry which was widely practiced at the time of the First Temple. They were not immune, however, to the charm and beauty of the general culture with its architecture, language, theater, and athletic activities. Even the rabbis were impressed by the beauty and the elegance of the Greek language, and according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, it is the only language into which we are allowed to translate the bible.
The Talmud comments on his statement that it is based on Noah’s blessing to his son Japheth, which is interpreted as saying “let the beauty of Japheth – Greece, dwell in the tents of Shem – Israel” (M. Megilah 1:8, B. Megilah 9:2, Gen. 9:27).
The rabbis were willing to embrace some elements of the Greek culture, but there were other elements which threatened the foundations of traditional Jewish life. One of those was the disparity between the succinct language of the biblical narrative and the elaborate and detailed one of the Greek theaters, as Erich Auerbach points out in “Odysseus’ Scar”, the first chapter of Mimesis. He contradicts the description of Abraham on his way to bound Yitzhak with that of Odysseus returning home from his journey and identified by the old maid by a scar on his leg. The Torah gives no detail of Abraham’s three-day journey, which must have been a very emotional and loaded one, whereas in the odyssey the scar is a pretext for a long tale about the hunting expedition in which it was acquired, its participants, what they wore and ate and so on for verses on end. The Torah’s approach has the advantage of allowing the reader to fill in the gaps and to have new insights in every reading, but the people of ancient Israel who were exposed to Greek drama and storytelling craved more content and even entertainment at their weekly Torah reading. An echo to that tension can be found in the following paragraph from Eicha Rabbah (Parasha 3):
אוּמוֹת הָעוֹלָם שֶׁהֵן יוֹשְׁבִין בְּבָתֵּי טַרְטִיאוֹת וּבְבָתֵּי קִרְקְסָאוֹת... מֵאַחַר שֶׁהֵן יוֹשְׁבִין וְאוֹכְלִין וְשׁוֹתִין וּמִשְׁתַּכְּרִין, הֵן יוֹשְׁבִין וּמְשִׂיחִין בֵּי וּמַלְעִיגִים בִּי... וְהֵן אוֹמְרִים אֵלּוּ לְאֵלּוּ כַּמָּה שָׁנִים אַתְּ בָּעֵי מֵחֵי, וְהֵן אוֹמְרִים כַּחֲלוּקָא דִּיהוּדָאֵי דְּשַׁבְּתָא. וּמַכְנִיסִין אֶת הַגָּמָל לְטַרְטְיָאוֹת שֶׁלָּהֶן וְהַחֲלוּקִין שֶׁלּוֹ עָלָיו וְהֵן אוֹמְרִים אֵלּוּ לְאֵלּוּ עַל מָה זֶה מִתְאַבֵּל, וְהֵן אוֹמְרִים הַיְּהוּדִים הַלָּלוּ שׁוֹמְרֵי שְׁבִיעִית הֵן וְאֵין לָהֶם יָרָק וְאָכְלוּ הַחוֹחִים שֶׁל זֶה וְהוּא מִתְאַבֵּל עֲלֵיהֶם.
וּמַכְנִיסִים אֶת הַמּוּמוֹס לְטַרְטְיָאוֹת שֶׁלָּהֶם וְרֹאשׁוֹ גָּלוּחַ וְהֵן אוֹמְרִים אֵלּוּ לְאֵלּוּ עַל מָה רֹאשׁוֹ שֶׁל זֶה מְגֻלָּח, וְהוּא אוֹמֵר הַיְּהוּדִים הַלָּלוּ שׁוֹמְרֵי שַׁבָּתוֹת הֵן, וְכָל מָה שֶׁהֵם יְגֵעִין כָּל יְמוֹת הַשַּׁבָּת אוֹכְלִים בְּשַׁבָּת, וְאֵין לָהֶם
עֵצִים לְבַשֵּׁל בָּהֶם וְהֵם שׁוֹבְרִים מִטּוֹתֵיהֶם וּמְבַשְּׁלִים בָּהֶם וְהֵם יְשֵׁנִין בָּאָרֶץ וּמִתְעַפְּרִים בֶּעָפָר
The non-Jews sit in their theaters and circuses… once they have lingered there, eating, drinking, and getting drunk, they start discussing me [the Jew] and mocking me…
They ask each other: “how long would you like to live?” and answer “as long as the Jew’s Sabbath robes”
They bring a camel, wearing sackcloth, to their theaters and ask “why is he mourning?” and they answer “the Jews observe the seventh year, and since they have no vegetables they ate the camel’s food, the thorns, and that is why he is sad”
They bring a mime [or clown] with a shaven head to their theaters and ask “why is his head shaven?” and they answer “The Jews observe the Sabbath, and they spend all their money of food for that day. They break their beds to use them as firewood, they sleep on the ground and roll in the dust [therefore they lose their hair].”
This source shows a close relationship between Greeks and Jews, in which the Greeks mock Jewish practices in their theaters, and the Jews are familiar with the details of that mockery. It corroborates the information available from historians and Jewish sources about Jews flocking to Greek theaters. The words תיאטראות, קרקסאות ויושבי קרנות – theaters, circuses, and those who gather in the marketplace, appear in rabbinic literature close to a hundred times, and attest to the magnitude of the problem.
The rabbis responded to that need by introducing sermons and expanding the narrow frame of the biblical narrative in several ways, among which are: a) adding biographical details about the protagonists; b) expanding the dialog; and c) intensifying the dramatic effect.
For example: a) the Torah introduces Abraham at the age of seventy-five but the Midrash adds a description of his life prior to that (Gen. 11:12, Gen R. 38:13 and on); b) according to the Torah, Rachel demands from Yaakov “give me children”, but the Midrash expands it to “why don’t you care? Your father prayed for your mother when she was barren, so you should also pray for me” (Gen, 30:1, Gen. R. 71:7); c) The Torah describes Yitzhak as terrified when he discovers that he was deceived by Yaakov, but the Midrash intensifies it to: “He saw an open abyss with hellfire burning underneath him” (Gen. 27:33, Tan. Deut. 33:1).
2. Time and location:
Most Midrashic material was written or created between 200 BC to 500 CE, but the latest work to be officially recognized as Midrash, Yalkut Shimoni, was compiled by Rabbi Shimon Kara of Frankfurt in the 13th century. The majority of the material was composed in Israel and the rest in Babylonia, with the exception of few later works written in Provence and Germany. It is obvious that when we consider a body of work written over more than a thousand years, by hundreds of authors, and over a wide geographical distribution, we cannot expect homogeneity. It is therefore also understood that when quoting “Midrash” in the formula of “the Midrash says”, it is not an accurate statement but rather one of convenience. The accurate, yet cumbersome form would be: Rabbi X says in compilation Y.
This form, however, could serve us for purposes of reference when citing the Midrash but it is not sufficient when we want to analyze it, for several reasons:
A) there are compilations which bear the same name but were written in different times and places, under different circumstances and influences, such as the compilation known as Midrash Rabbah, or the Great Midrash. In this work, which covers the Pentateuch and the five scrolls, there is a gap of almost 500 years between the editing of the unit of Genesis and that of Deuteronomy (5th and 10th century).
B) Some texts, known as pseudo epigraphs, are attributed by the author to a historical or fictional character, usually in order to grant the work a halo of importance and authority. Such is the case of פרקי דרבי אליעזר הגדול – the teachings of Rabbi Eliezer the Great, which contains direct references to Islam, and therefore could not have been written by R. Eliezer, who lived several hundred years before the birth of that religion.
C) Most of Midrashic literature has loose rules of editing, and because of the popularity of the genre authors borrowed freely form each other, so it is very common to find a concept or a unit of Midrash appearing in many reincarnations and versions in different compilations.
3. Categories of Midrash:
Defining the different genres of the vast Midrashic literature is not an easy task, so scholars initially defined it as all of rabbinic literature which does not deal with Halakha. Joseph Heinemann suggested a general categorization of Aggadah which identifies three major genres. Although his categorization could be ramified into many sub-genres and styles, it is very useful as an initial tool of analysis. The categories Heinemann identifies are:
A. Text based, exegetic – most of the Midrashic material in Rashi’s commentary to the Torah belongs to this category. It includes material based on a textual anomaly, which could be a disagreement between two accounts of the same event; a choice of words; the phrasing of the text and so on. Even among the text-based Midrashim there should be a distinction between those which deal with a real textual problem and those which deal with a fabricated one, the latter usually being a sign of an agenda the author is trying to promote. I will later present a flow chart which could help us identify the two and distinguish between them.
B. Biographic Aggadah - this category includes the life stories of post-biblical characters. It deals mainly with the biographies of the authors of the Mishna and the Talmud but includes also stories of the foreign rulers, non-Jewish neighbors, and commoners who came to court or had interaction with the rabbis.
C. Moral-ethical Aggadah – under this category we can file all the rabbinic material whose purpose is to teach ethics and moral values, the most famous example of which is tractate Avoth of the Mishna.
4. The attitude towards Midrash:
Mishna and Talmud period: strong opposition and suspicion and even among supporters, objection to the writing of Midrash.
Geonim period and Golden Age in Spain: acceptance only of what is logical, allegorical explanation for the rest and rejection when the first two approaches fail.
Ashkenazi rabbis from the 13th century on: total and literal acceptance.
Sephardic Rabbis from the 15th century on: some follow their Ashkenazi contemporaries and some their Sephardic ancestors.
5. Dating Midrash: References to historical events or lack thereof; Language; names of authors; cross references in other works.