 |
| One of the six known manuscript versions of the Tosafist work Hadar Zekeinim. This one dates around the 15th century. |
Introduction
This article—based extensively on the research by Rabbi Dr Zvi Ron[1]—examines various Midrashim that have been rejected by an unofficial form of collective rabbinic consensus. These include Midrashim from lesser known sources as well as, surprisingly, those from classical Midrashic sources such as Mechilta, Sifra, Sifri, Midrash Raba and Midrash Tanchuma.
Midrashic ‘status’
Not all Midrashim are cut from the same cloth and there appears to be a hierarchy of Midrashic sources. Rav Hai Gaon (939-1038), for example, suggests that those Midrashim that made it into the corpus of the Talmud, are of a superior quality to those that remained in the anthologies of Midrashic works alone. He maintains that the Midrashim not found in the Talmud can be rejected if they do not seem plausible:
“[W]hat is not established in the Talmud we do not need so much…[I]f it is proper and good we study and teach it, and if not we take no heed of it” (Otsar haGaonim, 1932, vol. 4, Chagiga 14a., 59-60).
In a similar vein, R. Yehuda ben Barzillai of Barcelona (11th century) writes that the classical Midrashic texts are just popular anthologies that did not undergo a formalised process of canonization. For this reason, only those Midrashim found in the Talmud can be regarded as canonical and authoritative. The other Midrashim are, therefore, considered to be:
“external aggadot…[as opposed to those] elucidated and mentioned in the Talmud” (R. Yehuda ben Barzillai, Peirush Sefer Yetsira, 1885, 89).
More recently, this principle is again expressed by R. Moshe Schreiber, known as the Chatam Sofer (1762–1839), who cited Nachmanides[2] that there is no requirement to heed the Midrashim excluded from the Talmud Bavli and Yerushalmi.[3]
We shall now examine three extreme cases of highly creative Midrashim:
1) The injury or killing of Yitzchak
A literal reading of the Torah reveals that Yitzchak emerged unscathed after he and his father Avraham had completed the intended ‘sacrifice.’ Even the classical Midrashim take pains to emphasise that there was no injury to, and certainly no sacrifice of, Yitzchak. The classical Midrashic anthology, Bereshit Rabbah, on Genesis 22:12, emphasises that the angels made sure to destroyed the knife. Avraham is said to have been undeterred and asked whether he should strangle Yitzchak instead. The Midrash retorts in the negative citing the verse, “Do not stretch out your hand against the lad.” In continues to inform us that Avraham—in his eagerness to fulfil G-d’s command no matter what—then asked whether he should not just cause one drop of blood to fall. The Midrash responds by applying the next part of the same verse, “nor do anything to him.” The lesson underscored by this Midrash is, of course, that G-d does not demand human sacrifices.
However, an “alternate midrashic tradition” (Ron 2013:30) advocates a more kinetic approach. Hadar Zekeinim, a collection of commentaries by the Tosafists, cites a student of Rashi, the Riva (R. Yitzchak ben Asher, c.1055-1125), who had “found a Midrash.” The implication being that it was an obscure Midrash and not well known. This Midrash claims that Yitzchak was severely wounded by his father Avraham in his attempt to carry out the required slaughter. The Midrash continues to explain that the injuries were so serious that Yitzchak was taken away from the world and spent two years recovering in the Garden of Eden.[4] This, in the imagination of the Midrash, is the reason why the Torah only describes Avraham as returning alone from the site of the would-be sacrifice.
It turns out that this extreme Midrash was not so obscure because it was later cited in the work Pa’aneach Raza by R. Yitzchak haLevi (13th century). Pa’aneach Raza, explains that there was less crying at Avraham’s wife, Sara’s funeral (the word ‘וְלִבְכֹּתָהּ' is written with a small kaf ‘כּ’ to emphasise this)[5] because her son, Yitzchak was not there as he was recovering in Heaven.[6]
This ‘obscure’ Midrash is again mentioned by another Tosafist, R. Yaakov of Vienna (14th century) and in a number of other commentaries. According to Shalom Spiegel, this interpretation resonated with the European Jews during the Crusades, many of whom died martyrs’ deaths.[7] R. Yaakov of Vienna also writes that Yitzchak was not at his mother’s funeral because he was in Gan Eden, recovering from what he describes as “the small wound” Avraham had inflicted on him.
This radical Midrash continued to surface well into the seventeenth century where it appears in a collection entitled Yalkut David, except that the “small wound” had now become the severance of his “simanim,” namely, his wind pipe and oesophagus. This would be analogous to the kosher slaughtering of an animal which requires the severance of the majority of these organs:
ואם
שחט רוב אחד מהם בעוף ורוב שנים בבהמה ובחיה שחיטתו כשרה
(Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 21:1-2).
These are rather subversive renderings of a Midrash that undermines the biblical lesson that G-d does not require human sacrifices—and, remarkably, Avraham’s alleged near fatal actions are not criticised at all. In fact, he emerges as a hero for his enthusiasm in carrying out G-d’s initial command.
This Midrash is not found in any of the classical anthologies of Midrashic literature. Midrash haGadol, for example, does mention that Yitzchak was in Gan Eden but no reason is given as to why he was there. Bereishit Rabbah suggests that Yitzchak was not present at his mother’s funeral because he was ‘studying in the Yeshiva of Shem and Ever.”
A similar but more radical version
This ‘obscure’ Midrash that, as mentioned, first appeared in Hadar Zekeinim as cited by the Riva who had “found a Midrash,” was not the only manifestation of this idea that Yitzchak was somehow wounded, whether severely or not. Another, but even more radical version of this ‘obscure’ Midrash is reflected by Tsidkiya ben Avraham haRofeh in his thirteenth century Shibbolei haLeket, an important Halachic work. Here, in a discussion on the blessings recited in the Shemona Esrei, he also “found an agada”:
מצאתי אגדה מאי על הסדר זה סדר עולם שכך מצינו י"ח ברכות של תפלה מעולם היו מתוקנות זו אחר זו. כיון שבאו אנשי כנסת הגדולה כללום ותיקנום כסדרן כשניצול אברהם מאור כשדים פתחו מלאכי השרת ואמרו בא"י מגן אברהם כשנעקד יצחק אבינו על גבי המזבח ונעשה דשן והי' אפרו מושלך על הר המוריה מיד הביא עליו הקב"ה טל והחיה אותו לפיכך אמר דוד כטל חרמון שיורד על הררי ציון וגו' כטל שהחיה בו יצחק אבינו מיד פתחו מלאכי השרת ואמרו בא"י מחיה המתים
“I found an agada…The order of blessings in the Shemona Esrei prayer correspond [to biblical events]…Later, [in the time of Ezra, the Men of the Great Assembly gathered them and put them in an order. When Avraham was saved from the fire of Ur Kasdim, the angles said the blessing of ‘Magen [shield of] Avraham.’ When Yitzchak was bound on the altar and was transformed into ashes…[and G-d’s] dew resurrected Yitzchak our Father, the angels said the blessing of Mechayei haMeitim [the One who Revives the Dead]” (Shibbolei haLeket, Inyan Tefila, 18:3).
Some of the classical Midrashim also do note that Yitzchak dies on the altar—but he dies of fright, not of an injury inflicted upon him by his father.[8] The Hadar Zekeinim source that the Riva “found,” only claims that Yitzchak was severely wounded by his father and had to recover for two years in Gan Eden. R. Yaakov of Vienna tones it down by claiming it was just a "small wound." The Yalkut David suggests that two major organs were severed but it was not fatal. The Shibbolei haLeket source that R. Tsidkiya ben Avraham haRofeh also “found” takes it a step further implying that Yitzchak was actually sacrificed, dies and is committed to ashes, and has to be miraculously resurrected.
Ibn Ezra (1089-1167)
R. Abraham ben Meir Ibn Ezra, one of the more rationalist of the rabbinic scholars who adhered to the literal interpretations of the Torah avoiding allegory and Midrash, strongly opposes these interpretations. He maintains that those who describe Yitzchak as physically sacrificed on the altar, are dangerously promoting a view contrary to the biblical text. One cannot claim that Avraham “slaughtered him and left him” (Ibn Ezra, Genesis 22:19). There are clearly two interpretative streams at odds with each other:
“There seems to be a philosophical dispute behind the proponents of Riva’s midrash and those who reject it; what is the message that the akeida comes to teach: is it meant to demonstrate Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his son, or God’s rejection of human sacrifice? If it is Abraham’s willingness, then to go through with the act of sacrifice makes Abraham even more impressive, while if it is the rejection of human sacrifice, under no circumstances could Abraham have gone through with such an abhorrent act“ (Ron 2013:33).
We now turn to another radical Midrashic claim.
2) Moshe is prepared to give his son to idolatry
Exodus 4:24-26 describes the enigmatic story of Moshe setting out for Egypt with his wife Tzipora and their infant son, who, for some reason, had not yet been circumcised. The narrative describes how G-d met him on the way and wanted to kill Moshe for not circumcising his son, so Tzipora quickly took a flint stone and performed the circumcision, thus saving her husband’s life.
Reasons are suggested as to why Moshe did not perform his youngest son, Eliezer’s, circumcision on time. One of them is that Moshe was presented with two conflicting instructions, timely circumcision and God’s command to go to Egypt immediately (b. Nedarim 31b).
However, once again, another radical Midrashic interpretation is also presented. According to Mekchilta deRabbi Yishmael, Jethro (Moshe’s father-in-law) made a deal with Moshe. He could marry his daughter, Tzipora, provided he would set aside his firstborn son for idolatry. Thereafter he could raise the other children in whatever path he chose. Moshe agreed and swore to this. According to this interpretation, it is not Eliezer but Moshe’s firstborn son, Gershom who remained uncircumcised. This explains why Tzipora had to perform the circumcision and not Moshe, who was still bound by his oath to his father-in-law.
This tradition that Gershom was uncircumcised, is also found reflected in Targum Yonatan to Ex. 4:24 as well as in Midrash Agada[9] and Sefer haYashar.[10] What is astonishing about this case is that—unlike the first example from the relatively obscure Hadar Zekeinim where Yitzchak is wounded at the altar of the Akeida—this case of Gershom remaining uncircumcised is found in the Mechilta deRabbi Yishmael which, according to many scholars, is Tannaic (from the Mishna period) and therefore not an obscure source. Yet, notwithstanding, there is much pushback and even outright condemnation of these claims. Ibn Ezra (Ex. 4:25), among others, retorts by stating that “a prophet would not do that, and certainly not the prophet of prophets.”
“This midrash was rejected on the grounds that it is unfathomable that the greatest prophet and leader of the Jewish people would agree to have his son raised as an idolater. It goes against the character of Moses as portrayed in the Torah and understood by traditional exegetes. The fact that this midrash appears in a Tannatic source could not protect it from such strong criticism and save it from rejection” (Ron 2013:37).
We now turn to our third and final example of radical Midrashim that were severely challenged.
3) Avraham’s daughter?
The Talmud (b. Bava Batra 16b) discusses whether or not Avraham had a daughter. The debate hinges on the verse “Abraham was old, well stricken in age; and the Lord had blessed Avraham in all things” (Gen. 24:1). R. Meir suggests (rather pragmatically) that part of this blessing was that Avraham did not have the trouble of raising a daughter. R. Yehuda take a very different approach maintaining that part of being blessed “in all things” implies that Avraham did indeed have a daughter. Some take this further suggesting that her name was simply “bakol,” literally, “in all things”.
This notion of ‘manifesting’ a daughter for Avraham is regarded as going too far from the literal tenor of the text. Furthermore, extra drama is introduced by R. Avraham Menachem Rappaport (1520-1596) in his Torah commentary Mincha Belula, who also “found a Midrash” this time claiming that Avraham’s daughter died on the same day as her mother Sara died. This is learned out of the same verse quoted earlier describing Sara’s funeral where Avraham cried over his wife’s passing. Now ‘וְלִבְכֹּתָהּ' written with a small kaf ‘כּ’ is taken to refer to Avraham’s daughter. Because of the small kaf, it could read וּלְבִּתָה implying that Avraham was crying for both his wife and his daughter who passed away on the same day.
This extra-textual interpretation—alluded to in R. Rappaport's expression “found a Midrash” suggesting that Avraham had a daughter and additionally having her die on the same day as her mother—was included in a work Maharil Diskin. This work contained the Torah commentaries by R. Yehoshua Leib Diskin (1818-1898). When this was published a century later in 1970, R. Moshe Feinstein was asked for his opinion on all this speculation about Avraham’s alleged daughter. He succinctly responded:
“[I]t is clear that this is an error and if it is found in any source it is an error there, as we see that it is not found in the commentaries of the early Sages” (Igerot Moshe, Orach Chaim 4 (40:6)).
Ron elaborates on this pragmatic approach of R. Moshe Feinstein:
“In fact, R. Feinstein does not shy away from calling for emendations even in classical midrashic texts when he feels they contain what he considers theologically untenable ideas. In another responsum, R. Feinstein characterizes a passage in Avot de-Rabbi Natan (34:4) where Ezra is described as being responsible for putting dots over certain letters and words in the Torah that he was unsure of, as ‘a clear error’ that must be emended, even though it appears in all manuscripts [of Avot de-Rabbi Natan] and was never emended by any authority previously” (Ron 2013:39).
Conclusion
We have noted that there is a hierarchical status of Midrashim with some regarded as more authoritative than others. We have also noted that besides the obvious pushback to difficult ideas “found in a Midrash” especially an obscure Midrash, there is also opposition to well established collections of Midrashim even to those of Tannaic (Mishnaic) provenance.
“Even accepting that midrashic commentary is not meant to be taken literally, there are limits to what may be said in such a commentary” (Ron 2013:40).
We have analysed three Midrashic cases that are
either subversive or just too ambitious even for the faithful. In Midrashic
literature—which
is typically fanciful in itself—one reaches a point where even those
who are receptable to Midrashic ideas feel that a line of credibility
has been crossed. Hermeneutical and exegetical licence can break down when
pushed too far. Sometimes Midrash is too much, even for the Midrash.
Further Reading
Kotzk
Blog: 211) THE CHALLENGE OF MIDRASHIC AMPLIFICATION:
Kotzk
Blog: 282) TWO DIVERSE MIDRASHIC CONCEPTIONS OF GOD:
Kotzk
Blog: 322) REACTIONS TO THE EMERGENCE OF MIDRASH RABBAH:
Kotzk
Blog: 113) THE FAMOUS 'MIDRASH'...WHICH DOESN'T EXIST:
[1]
Ron, Z., 2013, ‘When Midrash goes too far: Three rejected Midrashic passages’, Tradition
46:4, Rabbinical Council of America.
[2]
Kitvei Ramban, 1963, Chaim Chavel, ed., Mosad Harav Kook, Jerusalem, vol.
1, 308,
[3]
Sheeilot uTeshuvot Hatam Sofer, Orach Chaim, 16.
[4]
Hadar Zekenim, Machon leHafatsat Peirushei Baalei haTosafot Al
haTorah, Benei Brak, Genesis 25:27, 56.
[5]
“Abraham came to eulogize Sarah and to cry (וְלִבְכֹּתָהּ) for her” (Gen. 23:2).
[6]
Pa’aneach Raza, 1998, Machon Torat ha-Rishonim, Jerusalem, Genesis 23:2,
107.
[7]
Spiegel, S., 1993, The Last Trial, Jewish Lights, Woodstock, 38-50.
[8]
See Pirkei deRabbi Eliezer, ch. 31.
[9]
Midrash Agada, Ex. 18:3.
[10]
Sefer haYashar, 1960, Tiferes Publishing, New York, 223.
No comments:
Post a Comment