471) Tzafnat Paneach – a ‘counter Rashi’ commentary

Extract from a 1364 manuscript of Tzafnat Paneach by R. Eleazar Ashkenazi

Introduction

This article − based extensively on the research by Professor Eric Lawee[1] − is divided into three parts:

Part 1 is a brief presentation of how the early Rashi texts were surprisingly diverse, and only emerged in the ‘standard’ form as we know them today at around the sixteenth century.

Part 2 looks at the early rabbinic reception of the Rashi texts.

Part 3 discusses and examines extracts from a little-known fourteenth-century ‘counter commentary’ to Rashi’s commentary. This ‘counter commentary’ was authored by R. Eleazar Ashkenazi, a Maimonidean rationalist, and entitled Tzafnat Paneach (Revealer of Secrets). 

252) HOW RASHI AND RAMBAM PART WAYS ON THE DEEPEST OF ISSUES:

Rambam (1135-1204)

Rashi (1040-1105)

INTRODUCTION:

A perceptive student will notice, very early on, just how diverse the different hashkafot or worldviews within Judaism are. Besides the differences between the various modern movements and trends, it is particularly interesting when such colliding views originate from primary rabbinic teachers such as Rashi (1040-1105) and Rambam (1135-1204).

In this essay, based largely on the writings of Professor Menachem Kellner[1], we will try to show just how disparate the views of Rashi and Rambam are on some of the most fundamental principles of Judaism.

Rashi passed away just thirty years before Rambam was born, yet theologically and philosophically they were worlds apart.

1) WHY WAS THE UNIVERSE CREATED?

THE VIEW OF RASHI:

According to Rashi’s very first commentary on Genesis (based on Midrash Tanchuma[2]) the Torah intentionally begins with an account of the Creation - instead of starting at a later section which deals with actual commandments - to show that the Land of Israel belongs to the Jews. Although the Jews conquered the Land from the original inhabitants (i.e., the seven Canaanite nations), the Jews were instructed to do so by the G-d who had created the world and who therefore was entitled to apportion land to, and take from, whomever He deemed necessary. 

Thus, according to Rashi, the Torah starts with the creation narrative to show, essentially, that the Land of Israel was destined for the Jews.

Rashi then continues with another Midrashic interpretation (based on Bereishit Rabbah) that the world was created in the ‘beginning’; 1) for the sake of the Torah, which is (also) called ‘the beginning’[3]; – and 2) for the sake of the Jewish People, who are (also) called ‘ the beginning.[4]’

Therefore, in Rashi’s view, the universe was created for the Torah and for the Jewish People who would eventually inherit the Land.

THE VIEW OF RAMBAM:

Rambam adopts a very different approach. He writes that the Torah specifically opens with an (albeit veiled) account of the story of the creation of the universe, where one thing was built upon another and entities were formed following some logical sequence, to indicate that the study of ‘natural science’ must always precede the study of ‘divine science’ (i.e., religion and theology).

Rambam suggests that knowledge of how the world works (physical science or al-‘ilm al-tiba’i) must always be the prelude to, and basis of, religious theology (al-‘ilm al-ilahi), otherwise, religion will exist suspended in an ungrounded and unnatural void.[5]

Strikingly absent from Rambam’s interpretation of Creation is any mention of Torah, Jews or Land.

As Menachem Kellner puts it:

“It is obvious that Rashi reads the Torah particularistically, Maimonides univeralistically.”

Furthermore, Rambam does not claim, as does Rashi, to know why the universe was created. This he says very clearly when writing about Creation:

“And we shall seek for it no cause or other final end whatever...

For when man knows his own soul...he becomes calm and his thoughts are not troubled by seeking a final end for that which has not that final end”[6]

2) THE PATRIARCHS KEPT THE ENTIRE TORAH BEFORE IT WAS GIVEN:

Another area where Rashi and Rambam disagree is on the matter of whether the patriarchs, Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov, kept all the laws of the Torah before it was given at Mount Sinai. Besides his reference to the patriarchs keeping all the Torah laws (such as Avraham observing Passover), Rashi - basing himself on an earlier Talmudic source - writes that even Noah studied the Torah because he already knew which animals were destined to be declared ‘pure’:

Although there are numerous other Talmudic sources which similarly convey this idea that the patriarchs observed all the 613 Commandments,[7] as so far as Kellner can ascertain, Rambam makes no reference to these sources in any of his writings[8].

In a letter from Rambam to one Chasdai haLevi, he explicitly denies that the patriarchs observed the commandments. Unfortunately, many scholars believe this letter to be a forgery,[9] so its accuracy as a support for this notion is moot.

Rambam does, however, admit[10] that certain laws were indeed observed before the Torah was given. Adam kept 6 laws; Noah added one to make the Seven Laws of Noah; Avraham added Brit Millah; Yitzchak added tithing; Yaakov added the prohibition of the sinew of the thigh; and later Amram (Moshe’s father) added a number of others - but it was still only with Moshe and the Sinai experience, that the Torah was completed with all the 613 commandments.

This excludes the possibility, in Rambam’s view, of anyone observing all the 613 commandments prior to Sinai.

Furthermore, according to the way Rambam understands the story of the Garden of Eden,[11] humans were not originally intended to even observe the laws of the Torah, which happened to be given much later, as Kellner explains, as a “concession to human weakness, not part of the eternal divine plan, as it were.”

Consistent with Rambam’s view that the Torah was not observed prior to Sinai, is his interpretation[12] of the story of Yehudah and Tamar (the woman of ill repute) - since prior to Sinai such matters were not restricted by Torah law, as, in his view, there was no Torah law at that stage.

3) THE TORAH PRE-EXISTED CREATION:

Rashi maintained that in addition to the patriarchs observing the entire Torah before it was given, the Torah actually pre-existed the creation. This is because, as we saw above, the world was created so that the Torah would be given to the people of Israel. Since the Torah was the reason for creation, it had to have been in existence (in whatever form) beforehand.

This concept does have some possible biblical antecedence,[13] where G-d is said to have founded the earth on ‘wisdom’:

The pre-existence of the Torah is also referenced in Midrashim[14] where G-d is said to have used the Torah as a ‘template’ to create the world. This notion became very popular in later rabbinic and particularly Kabbalistic writings where it is said that “G-d looked into the Torah and created the world.”[15] 

Along similar lines, Ramban (Nachmaindes), considered the father of Jewish mysticism, was later to write that Torah cannot be separated from the natural world because both are intrinsically connected and, in fact, were one and the same thing.

However, Rambam (Maimonides), following from Rav Saadiah Gaon entertained no such notion. For Rambam, it made no sense even in speaking about ‘before’ creation - as ‘time’ itself was a creation.

According to Rambam, to believe that anything, besides G-d, existed prior to creation is “infidelity beyond any doubt.”[16] Rambam also calls the rejection of such a notion a fundamental “foundation of the Torah.”[17]

Kellner writes:

“It is likely that his strong language reflects his abhorrence of the idea that anything might be co-eternal with God.”

Rambam had no time for any belief in a G-d requiring assistance from any ‘holy objects’, ‘energies’, or 'texts' (in whatever form). He writes:

“I have seen a statement...in...Chapters of Rabbi Eliezer[18], which is the strangest statement I have seen by one who follows the Law of Moses our Master[:]...

’Wherefrom were the heavens created? From the light of His garment. He took some of it, stretched it like a cloth, and thus they were extending continually...’”

Rambam also rejected the notion that G-d has personal ‘attributes’. This idea of attributes or sefirot and levushim (garments) was also to become even more popular after the publication of the Zohar about 50 years after Rambam’s passing.

It should be noted that while many criticize Rambam for his rationalist views as if they were anti-spiritual, it could be argued that his belief in an unknowable and unfathomable G-d was a deeper and purer form of monotheism than that of the mystics. One of the areas where we see this is in his unapologetic rejection of G-d co-existing with any co-eternal attributes or entities.

4) THE CHOSEN PEOPLE:

Clearly Rashi, as well as most other rabbinic sources, consider the Jews to be the Chosen People. Rambam, however, had some interesting definitions of, and opinions on, this matter.

Kellner describes Rambam’s view of history as following a pattern of 'natural randomness':

“According to Maimonides, God’s choice of the Jews as the chosen people was actually a consequence of Abraham’s discovery of God and not a historically necessary event.”

This is borne out by the way Rambam describes[19] how idolatry started out simply as a way of showing respect to G-d through lauding His creations, such as the moon and stars which were a testament to their Creator. This idea, however, became corrupted over time when G-d no longer featured anymore and the agents took on an independent power of their own. It was believed that certain cult-like practices, which claimed to harness the spiritual energy of such entities, would bring prosperity and avoid punishment. Various temples were constructed and specific rituals were adopted to appease these self-governing gods.

Eventually, Avraham was born into that idolatrous environment, and he discovered the One G-d, despite the fact that “[h]e had no teacher, nor was there anyone to inform him.”

Conspicuously absent from Rambam’s entire narrative of Avraham’s discovering G-d, is any mention of interference or intervention by G-d Himself[20].

In Rambam’s account, G-d does not choose Avraham but Avraham, absolutely independently, chooses G-d!

[This is reminiscent, in some strange way, of the famous anti-Semitic slur by British journalist and possible Russian spy, William Norman Ewer (d.1977) known also as Trilby, who said: “How odd of God to choose the Jews.” This prompted many responses[21] including: “It’s not so odd, the Jews chose God.”]

Thus, according to Rambam, G-d did not seek out Avraham as part of some cosmic plan. If, hypothetically, the person who discovered G-d amidst a world of idolatry, had been someone else from any other nation or culture, the commandments of the Torah would have reflected the norms and 'cultural authority' of that people.

Had that been the case, Kellner continues, then:

“[t]he inner meaning of the Torah...would all be equivalent to...the Torah as it was indeed revealed to Moses at Sinai, but its outer garment would be dramatically different...

Maimonides is not shy about adopting the implications of this position. The specific laws of the Torah reflect historical circumstances which could have been different.”

This stark view of Rambam will surprise many as it indeed startled many of Rambam’s contemporaries. R. Yehuda haLevy[22] (1075-1141), for example, held a typically polar opposite view. Jews, he said, were specifically chosen by G-d. He believed that it was only because of their “inyan Eloki” or unique G-dliness which was an inherent feature of the Jew, that Jews were chosen by G-d. [23] 

Later, the Kabbalists declared that a Jew's soul was "a part of  G-d", and even later the Chassidim added,  "Truly a part of G-d." 

Rambam, however, held fast to his position because of the primary role the notion of freedom of choice played in his theology. He called freedom of choice ‘the great ikkar’ or great principle. History, according to Rambam, was not absolutely preordained and therefore G-d did not specifically choose Avraham.

For Rambam, G-d did not choose the Jews because they were so special - rather, they were so special because they chose G-d.

The most notorious example of Rambam's view of history as being a process of ‘natural randomness’ is his view of the sacrifices. He taught that sacrifices were not G-d’s first choice but rather given as a concession to those spiritually primitive Israelites who were not yet fully weaned from their previous idolatrous practices where sacrifices featured supreme.

This is clearly a most audacious claim especially considering how much of Judaism is comprised of laws relating to sacrifices and laws of ritual purity – including the future hopes of the restoration of the sacrifices in Messianic times.

However, Rambam did not accept the general rabbinic view of ‘yeridat haDorot’ where the nation was said to have regressed spiritually since Sinai, but instead he firmly believed in exactly the opposite – that spiritual and intellectual evolution and progression only occurs within the fullness of time.

This is why, according to Rambam in his Guide, it appears that we will not bring sacrifices in the Third Temple because by then we will have been fully weaned from the ancient and less profound necessity to do so. 

However, because Rambam in his Mishneh Torah does speak of the sacrifices being reinstated, there is much controversy over which was his true position. Considering that the Mishneh Torah was written around 1170/80 and the Guide at around 1190 one could argue that the Guide reflects his stronger view. Nevertheless, the mainstream view is that the sacrifices will indeed be restored in the future.

SPIRITUAL IMPLICATIONS:

The theological implications between those who follow Rashi and those who follow Rambam on these matters are immense.

Describing Rashi’s position, Kellner writes:

“If the Torah pre-exists creation, if in some sense or other it serves as blue-print of the universe, then quite obviously, the laws of the Torah bear some sort of constitutive relationship to the cosmos and fulfilling those laws can (or must) have some sort of impact on that cosmos.

From here, full-blown theurgy [i.e., a magic-like or quid pro quo spiritual manipulation][24] is but a short step...

[a]nd Israel’s obedience to the laws of the Torah can be construed as the key to the continued proper functioning of that universe.

Getting Jews to fulfil the commandments becomes a matter of cosmic concern.

For a person holding such views...it is literally inconceivable that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the pre-ordained progenitors of Israel from before creation, did not obey all the commandments of the Torah, both Sinaitic and rabbinic.”

This position has become the de facto position almost universally followed by most groups of religious Jews to this day.

Enter Rambam and everything changes:

“From Maimonides’ account it appears that Abraham, the self-taught philosopher par excellence, had no need of Sinai. Sinai is a concession to the sad fact that the root planted by Abraham was on the verge of being uprooted.

In order to preserve the philosophical core of the Torah, it had to be hedged about by laws and ceremonials, which do not accomplish anything in themselves, but were instituted in order to serve moral, social, or philosophical ends.

For a person holding these views, it is literally inconceivable that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob observed laws and ceremonials later given at Sinai in response to the degeneration of the Jews in Egypt.”

- These two doctrinal hypotheses of Rashi and Rambam could not be in any further tension!

ANALYSIS:

Both Rashi and Rambam - while accepting the Revelation at Sinai - interpreted that event in ways that were ecclesiastically worlds apart.

For Rashi, the Sinai experience was a cosmic continuum of the pre-creation era, while for Rambam it was a necessary concession in response to the historical reality of the time, in order to cement the threatened tradition begun by Avraham.

These vastly disparate positions of Rashi and Rambam are irreconcilable.

They have far-reaching implications which, of necessity, will inform one’s theological and spiritual perspective.

It is extraordinary, though, that on such fundamental issues, whichever view one subscribes to, the other position will continue to remain unacceptable, untenable even objectionable if not blatantly abhorrent - yet they all curiously fall within the vast umbrella of rabbinic thought. 

FURTHER READING:

[For some insight into the story behind the Rashi texts as we have them today, see And What Does Rashi Say?

For more on Rambam’s views, see Two Mutually Exclusive Views on Prayer, and Two Mutually Exclusive Notions of Holiness, and Netilat Yadayim – A Means of Expelling Evil Spirits or a Simple Ablution?, and What was Rambam’s Real View on ‘The Revival of the Dead’? and R. Yaakov Emden’s ‘Cognitive Dissonance” with Regard to Maimonides, and ‘A Leaf Falls From a Tree’ – Accident or Providence?]

---

[1] Rashi and Maimonides on the Relationship Between Torah and the Cosmos, by Menachem Kellner.

[2] This was a compilation of three aggadic works on the Torah with only two extant. According to Samuel Berman "earliest manuscript of this text was compiled in late 8th or 9th century.”

[3] “The beginning of His way,” Proverbs 8:22,

[4] “The beginning of His crops,” Jeremiah 2:3.

[5] Part of Rambam’s text reads:

“Do you not see the following fact? God...wished us to be perfected....

Now this can only come about after the adoption of intellectual beliefs, the first of which being His apprehension...according to our capacity.

This, in its turn, cannot come about except through divine science and this divine science [i.e., religion and theology] cannot become actual except after a study of natural science [al-‘ilm al-tiba’i].

This is so since natural science borders on divine science [al-‘ilm al-ilahi], and its study precedes that of divine science in time as has been made clear to whoever has engaged in speculation  on these matters.

Hence God...caused His book to open with the ‘Account of the Beginning,’ which, as we have made clear, is natural science.

And because of the greatness and importance of the subject and because our capacity falls short of apprehending the greatest of subjects as it really is, - which divine wisdom has deemed necessary to convey to us – we are told about these profound matters in parables and riddles and very obscure words.”

[Introduction to Moreh Nevuchim (Guide of the Perplexed)]

[6] Guide III,13.

[7] Mishna Kiddushin 4:14, Yoma 28b, Nedarim 32a,

[8] I did notice, however - in Rambam’s Hilchot Avodat Cochavim, ch.3 - a reference to Jacob’s son, Levi, being appointed to teach in the ‘yeshiva’ and entrusted with the perpetuation of the ‘mitzvot of Avraham’.  Read through modern filters it would seem that Levi taught the 613 mitzvot in a modern yeshiva in Bnai Brak, but the question, of course, is whether one can equate the ‘mitzvot of Avraham’ (which were most likely, primarily of an anti idolatrous nature) with the 613 ‘mitzvot of G-d’ as we came to know them after Sinai?  

    

[9] See A Maimonides Reader, by Isadore Twersky (1972), p. 478.

[10] Hilchot Melachim 9:1.

[11] Guide I, 2 and II, 30.

[12] Guide III, 49.

[13] Proverbs 3:19 and 8:22.

[14] Bereishit Rabbah 1;1 and 4.

[15] Zohar, Terumah, II, 161,1.

[16] See also Rambam, Hilchot Teshuva, III, 7; and Guide II,13.

[17] Guide I, 68.

[18] Pirkei de’Rabi Eliezer was an Aggadic- Medrashic work retelling many biblical stories, and may have been written in Italy around 830CE.

[19] See the opening chapters of Rambam’s Hilchot Avodat Cochavim.

[20] Other than, of course, being the object of Avraham’s inquiry and subsequent discovery.

[21] Such as “Not odd of God, Goyyim annoy’im,” and “How strange of man, to change the plan.”

[22] Although not technically a contemporary or Rambam as he passed away when Rambam was just six years old.

[23] Kuzari 1:48.

[24] Parenthesis mine.

211) THE CHALLENGE OF MIDRASHIC AMPLIFICATION:

INTRODUCTION:

One of the first questions any student of Midrash[1] is confronted with is: Do I have to believe the expanded Midrashic interpretations which are clearly embellishments over and above the literal meaning of the source text?

In this article, we will look at how various authorities throughout the ages have dealt with this question, which is a very pressing - if not a make or break - issue for many.

The first five examples are taken from R. Moshe Shamah in his Recalling the Covenant.[2]

RAV SHERIRA GAON (906-1006):

This is how Rav Sherira Gaon, who was the head of the Pumbedita Academy, answers the question of taking Midrashim literally:

“Those points brought out from scriptural verses called Midrash and Aggadah are assumptions. Some are accurate...but many are not...”[3]

Rav Sheria Gaon makes the point that an ‘intelligent’ person will know how to select fact from hyperbole and exaggeration:

“We abide by the principle, ‘According to his intelligence is a man commended’ (Proverbs 12:8).

Then he goes on to deal with Aggadot which he calls the work of the ‘student’s students’ (i.e. a ‘second generation’ expansion of an expansion):

“As to the aggadot of the student’s students...most of them...are not as they [were originally][4] expounded.

Accordingly we do not rely on aggadot.

The correct ones of them are those supported by intelligence and by Scripture.

There is no end to [the exaggeration of][5] aggadot.”

RAV HAI GAON (939-1038):

Rav Sherira’s son, Rav Hai Gaon echoed his illustrious father and wrote:

“...we do not rely on Aggadah.”[6]

But then he extends his words to apply not just to Midrash and Aggadah – but also to certain sections of the Talmud:

 “...regarding what is ensconced in the Talmud, if we find a way to remove its errors and strengthen it, we should do so...”

RAV SHMUEL BEN HOFNI GAON (960-1034):

Rav Shmuel ben Hofni Gaon picks up on this theme of Talmudic Aggadah and writes in his Introduction to the Talmud[7]:

“Aggadah constitutes all the explanations in the Talmud on any subject that does not refer to a mitzvah.

You do not learn from them except what seems acceptable to the mind...and the rest we do not rely upon.”

Rav Shmuel is apparently saying that the prime purpose of Talmud is to expound on religious commandments and practices. Anything other than a technical discussion of mitzvot, must first pass through the filter of the intelligent mind before it is to be considered.

R. AVRAHAM IBN EZRA (1089-1164) ON ‘SHAMOR VEZACHOR’:

Ibn Ezra writes in his Torah commentary about the words ‘zachor’ and ‘shamor’ which occur alternately in the two biblical versions of the Ten Commandments.

In Exodus, it reads ‘Remember (zachor) the Sabbath...’ - and in Deuteronomy, it reads ‘Observe (shamor) the Sabbath...’[8]

The Talmud says:

“Zachor and shamor were simultaneously said by G-d – [and this was a miracle] because it is not possible for the mouth to say and for the ear to hear [words spoken at the same time]”:

Ibn Ezra comments on this notion and begins by making it clear that he is not being disrespectful to the Sages:  

“...for our minds are meager in comparison to their minds...”

Yet he immediately dispels the commonly accepted notion that both expressions were said simultaneously by G-d!

“...but people of our generation think that their words were intended to be taken literally which is not the case.”[9]

Ibn Ezra suggests his more rational interpretation that:

“...[in Exodus,] when Hashem uttered zachor  (to remember the Sabbath day) everybody understood it to mean in order to observe it, so (in Deuteronomy) Moshe wrote shamor.”

RAMBAM (1035-1204):

Rambam writes regarding those who interpret Midrashim literally:

“They destroy the Torah’s glory and darken its brilliance, they make G-d’s Torah the opposite of what was intended.

He stated in the perfect Torah regarding the nations ‘who will hear all these statutes and say, “What a wise and insightful people this great nation is”’ (Deut. 4:6).

But when the nations hear how this group relates the words of the sages in a literal manner they will say, ‘What a foolish and ignorant people this insignificant nation is.’“

The Rambam’s piece de resistance is his description of the ‘expounders’ who go on to give elaborate explanations about some of these Midrashim which they themselves do not comprehend:

“Most of these expounders explain to the public what they, themselves, really do not understand.

Would that they be quiet or say, ‘We do not understand what the rabbis mean in this statement or how to interpret it.’

But they...expound at the head of the assembly the [Midrashic][10] derashot...literally, word by word.”[11]

Then in Rambam’s Guide for the Perplexed, he continues:

“...Now, I wonder whether those ignorant persons [who take the Midrashic interpretations literally] believe that the author of this saying gave it as the true interpretation of the text quoted, and as the meaning of this precept...I cannot think that any person whose intellect is sound can accept this.

The author employed the text as a beautiful poetical phrase, in teaching an excellent moral lesson...poetically connected with the...text.”[12]

R. MOSHE SHAMAH:

After sharing these sources with us, R. Moshe Shamah concludes:

“As long as the reader or listener realizes that a proposed interpretation of a text is not necessarily its true meaning...and that the highly improbable, often fantastic and sometimes impossible realities portrayed are not literal, no harm is done and a benefit is derived from the lesson.”[13]

Here are some additional references I was able to find as well:

RASHBA (1235-1310):

R. Shlomo ben Aderet, also known as Rashba, wrote a special commentary on certain Midrashim called Perushai HaAggadoth. In it, he too shows that Midrashim were not meant to be taken literally.

VILNA GAON (1720-1797):  

      

The Vilna Gaon also dealt with various Midrashim in a non-literal manner in a small book entitled 'A Commentary on Many Aggadoth'.

RAMCHAL (1707-1746):

R. Moshe Chaim Luzzatto, known as Ramchal, discusses the metaphoric nature of Midrashim in his Ma’amar al haAggadot, or Essay on the Aggadot. He writes:

"...they [the sages who compiled the Midrashim] would commit them to writing so that they [the ideas contained therein] would not be lost to succeeding generations, but [they would do so] in an obscure form or in various riddles."

He also says:

"... only persons of clear mind, who have been well trained in correct logical analysis, will succeed in [understanding] them. Dense individuals and those untrained in correct logic, if they should come across them, would interpret these true and precious concepts as to make them erroneous and harmful."

This is an interesting understanding because while the concept the Midrash is trying to convey may be true, the means of conveying the message is not necessarily true.

MEIRI (1249-1310):

Menachem Meiri, also described as a ‘Maimonidean’, writes in a more direct manner:

אין עקרי האמונות תלויות בראיות של פשוטי מקראות ואגדות וכבר ידעת שאין משיבין באגדה

“...the fundaments of Judaism are not determined by simplistic interpretations of Scripture, or by aggadot, as you know that we do not respond to aggadot.”[14]

MAHARSHA (1555-1631):

R. Shmuel Eidels, known as the Maharsha - in the introduction to his Chidushei Aggadoth – writes that statements of our Sages that contain wild stories which do not make sense are to be explained as parables and metaphors alluding to something else.

R. SHIMSHON REFAEL HIRSCH (1808-1888):

R. Shimshon Refael Hirsch clearly writes that Aggadic statements “are not part of Oral Tradition from Sinai”. 

He says we should rely on the views of Rav Sherira Gaon, Rav Hai Gaon, etc.... who taught that we do not accept Midrashic literature unless it appears reasonable. Furthermore, he suggests that those who maintain their insistence on perpetuating the literal meaning of Aggadot may, in fact, be opening the doors to heresy!

JUMPING ELEPHANTS:

A scholarly rabbi, who is an acquaintance of mine, was once giving an explanation on a Tosefot which says that elephants can jump. When one of the students questioned the accuracy of that statement, the rabbi got upset and said; “If Tosefos says elephants can jump – then elephants can jump!”

However, according to Smithsonian.com:

“If you were to look at an elephant’s skeleton, you’ll see that they’re standing on their tippy toes...All the bones are pointed straight down...That skeletal design supports the weight, but does not allow for an upwards spring from the feet, which is what would be required for jumping.”

AN EDUCATOR WHO SPEAKS OF ‘THE DANGERS OF MIDRASHIM’[15]:

R. Pinchas Rosenthal, who is the dean of Torah Academy of Long Island writes about the way we teach children Midrashim:

“The thrust of my concern lies in my observation, as a rebbe and principal for many years, that most current chinuch [religious education][16], rather than inspiring our students with the beauty and wisdom of Torah, too often teaches them that Torah learning requires that they suspend disbelief, setting aside their intellectual faculties rather than further engaging and sharpening them.

As a result, many of our students harbor secret suspicions (which they are too often afraid to voice because their rebbeim will not welcome questions of this type) that Torah cannot stand up to rigorous intellectual scrutiny and/or feel that Torah is completely irrelevant to their lives as 21st century Jews.”

R. Rosenthal addresses particularly the well-known Midrash which tells of Pharaoh’s daughter, Batya ‘extending’ her hand ‘many cubits’ to reach the basket in which baby Moshe was floating down the Nile. He continues:

“As part of the interview into high school, I often challenge incoming students with questions that contrast the P’shat [literal or simple meaning][17] of a Chumash story with its Midrashic counterpart. The reaction is always the same - the student looks at me like a deer caught in the headlights of an oncoming truck.

The other day, the student was an eager young lady named Leah. I asked her the following question: If you were able to go back in time to the moment when Paroh’s daughter saw baby Moshe in his basket, what would you see? Would you see Paroh’s daughter requesting her maidservant to fetch the basket as the posuk tells us or would you see her arm grow 25 feet long like Mister Fantastic and rope in the basket as the Midrash says?

I felt at that moment as if I had asked Leah to choose between her two parents at a divorce proceeding.  She knew that the Torah was an authority and correct and the Midrash was an authority and correct. Her mind was telling her both versions could not be simultaneously true! Therefore, she was frozen and unable to respond.

Leah was educated in a yeshiva day school. The vast majority of children from the current yeshiva system believe all Midrashim are part of the literal account of the events that occurred in the Tanach. 

Let me fast forward to an Anthropology Class at Queens College. The professor is discussing ancient Egypt. He mentions there is a legend among the Jews about the daughter of Pharaoh concerning her arm stretching out to retrieve baby Moses. Leah raises her hand. She says that it was a miracle and the daughter of Paroh had her arm stretched out to save Moshe.

Suddenly, all 53 members of her class turn to her and stare. Her face turns crimson. The Professor asks her, ‘Do you believe that actually happened?’ Leah feels the temperature rising. She knows that her beliefs are under attack, and that she has been publicly put on the spot. She desperately wants to explain the Torah position in a cogent way and yet she finds that despite 15 years of Yeshiva education, she is unable to do so...

I explained to Leah that the... Midrash is there to point to the story behind the story. In my opinion, the seemingly miraculous extension of Paroh’s daughter’s arm is directing us to another idea - the great difficulty that she must have faced saving the life of a Jewish baby...

 Her actions required her to go against her upbringing and the dictates of her father.  This would of necessity create tremendous conflict for any young woman, but particularly for one in her position of prominence in Egyptian society...

The rabbis are teaching us that her emotional shift towards feeling protective of this baby is as much of a miracle as if G-d had extended her arm 25 feet. 

Leah felt as if a load had been removed from her shoulders. At age 14, she was taught for the first time, the relationship between the Torah and the Midrashim.

It is my belief that all teachers should only teach a Midrash if they help the students discover its deeper message.[18]”

                                    

A YOUNG STUDENT SPEAKS:

Here is how one sixteen-year-old young man from our community, who grew up in the Torah educational system, shared his candid views:

“Being six or seven years old, learning Judaism in a Jewish day school, is great. You get to learn about all the amazing stories the Jews went through, like when they could pick fruit from the Red Sea when it parted, etc....

But the issue as a young Jewish learner comes when you grow up a little and expand your mind to the world around you and see with your own eyes the unrealistic writings of the Midrashim – but yet being told to believe in them wholeheartedly.

Our teachers are telling us at a young impressionable age that these stories are legitimate and literal.

This makes us young Jewish learners question the realness of the Torah and Judaism as a religion as a whole.” [MF]

A CONTEXT:

To be clear:

It is my subjective view that Midrashim are often morally and theologically profound (sometimes even subversive - see here).

Additionally, they serve as a useful tool in helping young children stay focussed and interested in their Torah studies. I believe it was Albert Einstein who said that if you want your children to grow up smart, then read them many fairy tales. And if you want them to be even smarter, then read them even more fairy tales. This is because they allow the developing mind to sour into the realms of great imagination.

But there comes a point when facts and truth must begin to take over if the person is to learn how to deal with reality. It's difficult to sit in a dentist's chair and trust him if you know he still believes in the tooth fairy.

ANALYSIS:

Most surprisingly - although many religious people do take some Midrashim quite literally - I battled to find primary sources which actually prescribe that position and which encourage us to take Midrashim literally!

The closest I could find was the mystic, Nachmanides (or Ramban) who writes:

‏. מי שיאמין בו טוב. ומי שלא יאמין בו לא יזיק

“Whoever believes in them [Midrashim], good – but he who does not believe in them will not be harmed.”

[And even here, there is a dispute as to whether Ramban only made this statement as part of a debate or polemic where lives could have been at risk - or whether he really meant it.[19]]

Either way (and I would love to be corrected on this) I was astonished that I could not find any sources requiring one to believe unconditionally in Midrashim.

This is noteworthy because, clearly, so many people do take many Midrashim very literally.

Perhaps it may have something to do with Rashi’s commentary on the Torah which every child is taught at a tender age. 

Although Rashi claimed his purpose was only to instruct on the pshat or literal meaning of the Torah text, much of his commentary is not his original interpretation but, in actual fact, selected quotations from the various Midrashim. Possibly around eighty percent of his commentary in Midrash based.

Presented this way, anyone reading Rashi could quickly be led to believe that his vast Midrashic content is indeed part of the Torah narrative!

So Batya’s hand did stretch out to reach Moshe and Yosef’s bones did float to the surface of the Nile prior to the Exodus and so on.[20]

This being the case, although there is no real literature stipulating or enjoining us to follow Midrashim literally, it’s importance has already been successfully and subliminally suggested in Rashi’s commentary which is the de facto popular ‘handbook’ to understanding the ‘basic text’  of the Torah.

Might this have become a contributing factor as to why so many have come to regard Midrashic amplifications as literal and historical pshat?

Perhaps this was why Rambam encouraged his son, Avraham ben haRambam, to study Chumash with Ibn Ezra and not with Rashi?

[21]

---

[1] Biblical and Talmudic interpretation which goes beyond the text and is often an exaggeration and expansion of the literal or plain meaning of the text.

[2] Parashat Beshalach p. 336.

[3] Sefer haEshkol, Hilchot Sefer Torah, p. 60a. Translations by R. Moshe Shammah.

[4] Parenthesis mine.

[5] Parenthesis mine.

[6] Ibid. Sefer haEshkol.

[7] Vilna edition, end of Berachot (erroneously attributed to Shmuel haNagid).

[8] Shavuot 20b.

[9] Ibn Ezra continues his deductive thinking:

He applies his logic and challenges the assertion that there was a need to create an extra supernatural component to the account of the Ten Commandments: If ‘zachor and shamor’ were said simultaneously then why is it not written ‘zachor veshamor’ in both versions of the Ten Commandments?

And if it the Talmudic statement was referring to a miracle, it can’t be because:

“...[In] every miracle Hashem performed through Moses there is some remote resemblance in reality that the intelligent will understand, but this claim that Hashem spoke zachor and shamor at one instant is so amazing that it would be more fitting to be written in the Torah [itself and not just in the Talmud][9] than all the other wonders and miracles that were written.”

And if one retorts that G-d’s speech is not like human speech, then:

“...how could Israel have understood Hashem’s words? For if a person hears zachor and shamor at the same instant he would not understand either....if we say it was a miracle that zachor and shamor were uttered at the same time, how did the ear hear them?

If we say that also was a miracle...why did the sages not mention that miracle, a greater one than speaking two words at the same time?”

[10] Parenthesis mine.

[11] Introduction to Perek Chelek.

[12] Guide, Friedlander 1956, 353-4.

[13] Shammai Parashat Beshalach, p.340.

[14] Meiri on Shabbat 55a.

[15] See: “’And the daughter of Paroh’s arm stretched out many cubits” and the dangers of Midrashim’, by Rabbi Pinchas Rosenthal.                                                                                                         

                                                                        

[16] Parenthesis mine.

[17] Parenthesis mine.

[18] Emphasis , R. Rosenthal.

[19] R. Yaakov Kamanetzky (Emet leYa’akov, Bereishit 44:18) maintained it was for the debate - while the Chattam Sofer (Orach Chaim 1:16), and Abarbanel maintained this was indeed his position.

[20] I thank Mendy Rosin for his input in helping me develop this idea.
[21] It is possible that this document is a forgery, although Shem Ton Ibn Shaprut as well as Ibn Kaspi quoted from it. It is printed in Iggerot veShe'elot uTeshuvot (a collection of letters from Rambam).