Introduction
This article—based extensively on the research by Professor Gary Porton[1]— investigates the historical conditions that may have fostered the complex and often elusive evolution of Midrash. Midrashim are the creative and often fanciful interpretations of the biblical text that dramatically expand its plain meaning. While some adopt a literal approach to the interpretation of Midrashim, others opt for an allegorical methodology. Based on a reading of Talmudic texts, Porton suggests a more diachronic or historical approach based on how and where Midrashim were first taught.
Fascinatingly, he discovers that Midrashim may never have been intended for communal consumption. They were not, as many have claimed, produced for sermons to entertain those in the synagogues. Instead, he hypothesises, they were part of an internal rabbinic tradition that was rarely expounded in the public domain. This research could significantly contribute to the way we read and understand Midrashim.
For the purposes of this study, the term Midrashim encompasses not only the formal collections preserved in classical Midrashic anthologies, but also exegetical teachings that emerge from interpretative engagements with Torah verses across the broader spectrum of rabbinic literature, including the Talmud.
Confined to the Beit Midrash
According to Porton, Midrash:
“has its primary locus within the Rabbinic schoolhouses of late antiquity” (Porton 2000:142).
This is a novel supposition because, until now, most
scholarship has assumed that Midrashim were taught in communal settings
such as synagogues and other places where the public gathered. In other words,
it has always been supposed that Midrashim were part of an educational
curriculum for the unlearned masses.
On the surface, this does seem to make sense because biblical narratives are often dry and remote, and difficult for laypeople to engage with meaningfully. The addition of an understandable, dramatic and captivating subtext, such as the Midrash, would secure the attention of the audience and facilitate the lessons intended to be taught.
An example of this previously-held and widespread view of rabbis actively and engagingly teaching Midrash to the masses is Marc Sapperstein, who, in his book titled “Jewish Preaching,” writes:
“Early Rabbinic literature provided ample testimony of preaching by the greatest rabbis” (Sapperstein 1989:26).[2]
However, Porton disputes this view. He maintains that, in general—while some sages did indeed interact pedagogically with the populace from time to time—for the most part, there is little record in the Talmud of such public teaching actually taking place:
“When we find rabbis within the context of synagogues, they most often are not delivering sermons. And when rabbis preach to the community, it is often in cities known for their Rabbinic academies. It therefore is unclear exactly to whom these ‘sermons’ were delivered” (Porton 2000:141).
According to Porton, the Talmudic rabbis were predominantly centred and located around the Beit Midrash or Study House and were not like the later rabbis who engaged primarily with the community and the people. One should not project, anachronistically, the role of post-Talmudic or mediaeval rabbis (5th to 15th centuries) back onto the earlier period of Talmudic rabbis:
“The existence of Rabbinic sermons during the medieval period accordingly does not testify to their presence in late antiquity” (Porton 2000:141).
In fact, the very term Beit Midrash may point to this very notion of Midrash being limited to the Beit Midrash during the Talmudic period.
Around the fifth century, as the classical period of antiquity turned into the mediaeval period, the public reading of the Torah in synagogues became a dominant custom. The focus shifted from the study house to the synagogue. It is at this very time that preaching and delivering sermons in a community setting also emerged.
The Talmudic texts
During the Talmudic period of late antiquity, however, the extent of the sages' participation in synagogue services seems limited:
“The Babylonian Talmud does not contain any unambiguous references to rabbis preaching in a synagogue, and Jacob Neusner argues against the rabbis having played a major role in the Babylonian synagogues” (Porton 2000:147).
The Talmud Yerushalmi, on he other hand, does contain some possible references to rabbis active in synagogues in Palestine. But generally, the texts indicate that the “‘preaching’ occurred in the setting of a Rabbinic audience” (Porton 200:148) and not a lay audience. There is a reference to a rabbi teaching a lesson in a synagogue (Y. Sota 1:4), but he may have been lecturing to other rabbis as opposed to preaching to the masses. Similarly, Abahu taught a lesson in the Madrata synagogue in Caesarea, but this too seems more like a lecture to other rabbis as opposed to a sermon to the people (Y. Berachot 3:1 and Y. Sanhedrin 1:1). R. Yona is recorded as praying in a synagogue (and sometimes at home) but not delivering a talk to the people in the synagogue (Y. Berachot 4:1). There were 480 synagogues in Jerusalem, and each was appended to a school and a Talmud study (Y. Megila 3:1):
אַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת וּשְׁמוֹנִים בַּתֵּי כְנֵיסִיּוֹת הָיוּ בִירוּשָׁלִַם וְכָל־אַחַת וְאַחַת הָיָה לָהּ בֵּית סֵפֶר וּבֵית תַּלְמוּד. [בֵּית סֵפֶר] לְמִקְרָא וּבֵית תַּלְמוּד לְמִשְׁנָה
Interestingly, R. Yehoshua ben Levi notes that the synagogue and the study house are specifically for the sages and their students (Y. Megila 3:3):
אָמַר רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לִֵוי. בָּתֵּי כְנֶיסִיּוֹת וּבָתֵּי מִדְרָשׁוֹת לַחֲכָמִים וּלְתַלְמִידֵיהֶם
Also, he says one may sell a synagogue to buy a study house (Y. Megila 3:1). That same section of the Yerushalmi deals with the differences between a private synagogue (בֵית הַכְּנֶסֶת שֶׁלְיָחִיד) and a public synagogue (בֵית הַכְּנֶסֶת שֶׁלְרַבִּים). These sources indicate that the ancient synagogue may have differed somewhat from contemporary popular synagogues in terms of their public function and usage. In short:
“much of the evidence indicates that the rabbis are notoriously uninterested in synagogues and most frequently describe themselves as engaged in exegetical and legal debate with one another within the schoolhouse. Thus, those who wish to connect Rabbinic Midrash solely, or even primarily, with synagogue sermons will find little in the Rabbinic sources to support the claim” (Porton 2000:149).
Midrash emerged in the Beit Midrash
Porton strongly advocates the notion that Midrash emerged in the Beit Midrash and not the Beit haKeneset:
“[T]here is no clear reason to assume that …[Midrash] derived primarily from the synagogues or from rabbis attempts, through sermons, to bring their interpretations of the Bible to the average Jew. The majority of the evidence suggests that Midrash originated in Rabbinic school-houses” (Porton 2000:154).
Accordingly, Midrash was produced by the rabbis for the rabbis, and not as educational and edifying tools for the general populace. Midrashim served primarily to tie rabbinic thought to authoritative biblical texts and root it there. In this way, Midrash functioned as a means “to find biblical warrant for their ritual and legal practices” (Porton 2000:154).
Rabbis for the Rabbis
On this view, the Talmudic period, unlike later rabbinic periods, focused on rabbis debating with and training other rabbis—not on educating the masses. Essentially, we observe a Talmudic period of intense inter-master and master-disciple relationships. These relationships are recorded in the frequent introductions to rabbinic statements where one rabbi expounds upon what he had learned from another, who in turn had heard it from another. The transmission lines of ideas were more horizontal (between rabbis and rabbis) than vertical (from rabbis to the common people). This does not mean that the rabbis did not concern themselves with the people at all, but rather that the people were not the target market of the rabbis:
“The rabbis’ influence on and concern for the general population is a matter of debate, but probably was not extensive. The rabbis’ main goal was to study Torah and to train other rabbis” (Porton 2000:154).
What emerges from this is that the Talmudic rabbis and sages would not have had to explain or justify their decisions and rulings to the population. They would only have had to argue, debate and persuade other rabbis that their conclusions were derived adequately from biblical verses.
Neusner maintains that the early Midrashim were attempts to ground Mishnaic law in the verses of the Torah. To this end, the sages were beholden more to their peers than to the people.
“The rabbis’…status within society derived from their ability to study, interpret, apply, and manipulate the Hebrew Bible” (Porton 200:154).
Unlike today, rabbinic acceptance primarily required interaction with other rabbis and did not depend on their relationships with the community.
A new perspective on the function of Midrash
Midrashic literature has always had a polarised reception. The simple faithful were keen to have more opportunities to express their faith in the wonderous accounts of the expanded extra-biblical narratives. Those of a more rationalist persuasion viewed Midrashic writing with a sceptical eye.
Maimonides describes the corpus of Midrashic literature as sometimes correct, sometimes erroneous, and sometimes purely rhetorical. He even goes so far as to say that some Midrashim are the “product of games.”[3] This notion of "games" may tie up with the rabbis' need to creatively manipulate Torah verses in order to establish a hierarchy of authority.
Porton’s analysis is significant because it opens a new perspective on the original purpose of Midrashic literature. Midrashim are certainly fanciful and often contain moral lessons—but, importantly, they also indicate their rabbinic authors’ rootedness in the text of the Torah verses which they expound upon so intimately. This blatant familiarisation with the text of the Torah would have ‘authorised’ their teachings and enhanced their standing in the community of rabbis. Much of Midrashic literature may have been somewhat transactional and produced specifically for the edification of the rabbis themselves, to show their mastery of Torah interpretation and, crucially, to find biblical precedents for the commandments they were formalising and writing down. In any case:
“[o]ften the connections and allusions in a Midrash are simply too obscure for non-rabbis, even if they heard them, to have understood them” (Porton 2000:156).
Midrashim were, therefore, produced for and directed towards the Talmudic rabbinic class. It remained within the internal structures of rabbis themselves and was not intended for external consumption.
Context
In support of this hypothesis, Porton makes the point that—unlike the early Church Fathers from the same period—the Midrashic rabbis were not trying to appeal to the outside population. The Church had to try to convince all the people that their new theology was valid. It was most successful in this endeavour, eventually gaining official recognition by the political powers of the time. The rabbis, on the other hand, did not feel the need to justify rabbinic Judaism to the Jewish masses and certainly not to the non-Jewish masses. They just had to be recognised by their rabbinic peers. There is no evidence that the rabbis:
“had to justify to the public the biblical warrants for their actions…[Therefore] their main arena of activity was the schoolhouse” (Porton 2000:162).
Conclusion
Of course, all this changed during the post-Talmudic mediavel period, or Middle Ages, where the rabbinic sermon began to function as a cornerstone of Jewish religious life. The rabbi—with his credentials now well established from earlier Talmudic times—emerged as the teacher of the people. Rabbis no longer interacted primarily with other rabbis but sought to expand their horizons to the wider community.
The synagogue and the sermon in the synagogue now assumed
centre stage in Jewish life. Midrash was now used as an important and
convenient pedagogical tool because it found applause amongst the masses,
albeit for different reasons than originally intended. This post-Talmudic
mediavel phenomenon seems to be reflected in modern times as well.
Further Reading
Kotzk Blog: 516) When Midrash
is too much for the Midrash
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:
No comments:
Post a Comment