contemporary culture. Drastic changes in cultural conditions may void the law of its contents or original intent. For example, we read in Lev 18:21 (= 20:2)
‘You shall not give any of your children to devote them to Molech’. This law was, apparently, irrelevant in the period under discussion. As a result, it was given a more general interpretation:
Rabbi Hananya ben Antigonos says: the language used by the Tora to refer to Molekh (lb) applies equally to anything that you accept sover- eign (l$Q) above you, even if it be a mote of wood or a shard.“’
Thus ‘Molekh’ no longer refers to a specific form of idolatry, but to any foreign religion. Other Sages interpreted ‘Molekh’ in a general sense, not as referring to idolatry, but to Gentiles:
The school of Rabbi Yishmael learned: the Scripture refers to any Jew who had intercourse with a gentile woman and conceived a son for idolatry. ‘~0
While the midrash often employs a non-literal approach to Scripture, we sometimes find midrashic interpretations that are
excessively literal. Theseexplanations are based on the widely-held axiom that every expression and phrase of the biblical text is significant. For example, the demonstrative pro- noun i7T or
nKT,‘this’, often appears in the text without referring to any specific object. The midrashic approach,.however, is based on the functioning of these pronouns in a strictly demonstrative way.
The verse‘This month (WVfi
‘I6
Mekhilta de-R. Yishmael, Pisha 5,p.
17. For otherexamples
of theexpression ?K
y131W lY1)3W3, see Mekhilta de-R. Yishmael, Pisha 17,p.
67; Nezikin 7,p.
274.‘I’ Mekhilta de-R. Yishmael, Nezikin 2,
p.
254.“’ Mekhilta de-R. Yishmael, Nezikin 8,
p.
277. Cf. also below.‘I9 Mekhilta de-R. Yishmael, Bahodesh 6,
p.
224.Im E T Megilla 25a. On this verse see Vermes, ‘Leviticus 18:21’, 108-24.
566
SCRIPTURE IN RABBINIC‘ LITk,RATURE:
;7T;l)
shall be for you the beginning of months; it shall be the first month of the year for you’ (Exod 12:2) is interpreted both by Rabbi Yishmael and by Rabbi Akiva as referring to a specific object (WynZ = the new moon at the beginning of the month). According to Rabbi Yishmael ‘Moses showed the new moon to Israel’ in order to teach them how to ‘observe the new moon and to fix the beginning of the month’. According to Rabbi Akiva, the pronoun ;72i7 hints that Moses had difficulty in fixing the time of the new moon and so the Holy One Blessed Be He showed him the actual form of the moon.‘*l Rabbi Akiva interpreted other verses similarly: Lev 11:29 ‘And
thh(?lTl) is unclean to you among the swarming things that warm upon the earth’ and Num 8:4 ‘And
this(nT1) was the workmanship of the lampstand’
(Mekhilta,ibid.).12* Deut 34:4
‘And the Lord said to him:
this (JlKT)is the land of which I swore to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob
. . . ’is also interpreted literally by Rabbi Akiva: ‘Scrip- ture tells us that God showed Moses all the hidden places of the land of Israel as if it were a set table’.‘= Another example of such a midrashic-literal interpreta- tion is attributed to the school of Rabbi Yishmael. The
derashexegesis of Exod 24:6 ‘And Moses took
half ofthe blood
. . .’says that Moses actually divided the blood into two equal portions.‘”
The literal-midrashic approach is most strikingly expressed in verses with personified descriptions of God. Whereas some of the Sages cannot accept the literal meaning of the text - ‘and is such an explanation possible?!’ - others affirm the literal meaning of the text. Sometimes the acceptance of the literal meaning is stated as a universal principle, such as: ‘Had it not been written, we could never have said it’. In other words, since the biblical text is formulated in a certain way, we must take it literally. For example, the description of God during the smiting of the first born in Exod 12:13 ‘I will pass over you’ is understood literally by Rabbi Eliezer: ‘had it not been written, I could never have said it; “and I will pass over you
. . .” -like a father who brings something to his son’.‘= The verse ‘And the Lord went before them by day in a pillar of cloud to lead them along the way’ (Exod 13:21) is explained by Rabbi Yose ha-Gelili in the same wording: ‘Had it not been written in the Bible, we could never have said it; like a father who carries a torch before his son
. . .‘.lz6Similarly, the description of God in Isa 315 ‘Like birds hovering,
SOthe Lord of hosts will protect Jerusalem’ is explained literally in the
Mekhiltu de-R. Shimon ben Yohai, Bo 12:27,p. 27: ‘Had it not been written, we could never have said it; like an animal that hovers over her young and gives her suck’. But the most extreme formulation of this approach can be found in
Mekhilta de-R. Shimon‘I’ Mekhilra de-R. Yishmacl, Pisha 1,
p.
6.In Cf. Sifrei Num. 61,
p.
58-59.‘23 Sifrei Num. 136,
p.
182.‘*’ Lev. Rabba 6:5,
p.
138. In Midrash Wnnaim,p.
57 this idea is ascribed to R. Yishmael and to two other persons as well.In Mekhilta de-R. Shimon ben Yohai, Bo 12:13,
p.
16.‘26 Mekhilta de-R. Shimon ben Yohai, Beshallah 13:21,
p.
47.567
S(‘RIPl L’Rl: IN RABBlNlC Ll’I‘tR~I‘URE SCRIP’I’URL. IN RAUl3INI(’ 1.1’1 LR,Z I L’KI;
ben Yohai, Beshallah 15:11, p. 92,
in a passage that compares God to the Gods
6:13; 10:20) leads us to conclude that later on he may have abandoned this wayof the nations:
of interpreting every particle IlK.‘They have eyes, but do not see’ (Ps 1155) - but He who created the world by His word is not like that: ‘For the eyes of the Lord run to and fro throughout the whole earth’ (2 Chr 16:9)
‘They have ears, but do not hear’ (Ps 115:6) - but He who created the world by his word is not like that, for ‘Thou who hearest prayer, to thee shal all flesh come’ (Ps 65:3)
‘They have noses, but do not smell’ (Ps 115:6) - but He who created the world by His word is not like that, for ‘the Lord smelled the pleasing odour’ (Gen 8:21)
‘They have hands, but do not feel’ (Ps 115:7) - But He who created the world by His word is not like that, for ‘my hand laid the foundation of the earth’ (Isa 48:13)
‘They have feet, but do not walk’ (Ps 115:7) - but He who created the world by His word is not like that
. . .rather, ‘on that day His feet shall stand’ (Zech 14:4)
‘They do not make a sound in their throat’ (Ps 115:7) - but He who created the world by His word is not like that, for ‘his speech is most sweet’ (Cant 5:16) and it is written ‘the rumbling comes from his mouth’
(Job 37:2)
However, the same story tells us that Rabbi Akiva found an interpretation even for the word IlK
in that verse.
‘KlTl TThK ‘3 IlK, “Youshall fear the Lord your God” is written to include the Tora scholars’. Rabbi Akiva and his disciples expounded not only the word nK, but other particles as well, thus following the approach of his teacher, Nahum of Gamzu, who, we are told, expounded each appearance of the
words yor pl, ‘but’, as restrictive, and each nK or tt1 as inclusive.lM Thus, we find Rabbi Akiva (often in opposition to Rabbi Yishmael) explaining every word and letter. For example, we have a halakhic discussion on the punishment for a priest’s daughter who has fornicat- ed, as to whether she should be sentenced to death by burning or by strangula- tion (as in the case of other women convicted of fornication). According to Rabbi Yishmael the sentence for a priest’s daughter guilty of fornication is the same as that of any married woman, that is: strangulation, whereas Rabbi Akiva derives from the verse Lev 21:9 that she is to be killed by burning. He expounds the word Jlal, ‘and the daughter’, in Lev 21:9 ‘And the daughter of any priest, if she profanes herself by playing the harlot
. .shall be burned with fire’, saying ‘I expound both the word M, “daughter”, and the word llal,
“and thedaughter”.’ The additional letter 1 in the word comes to teach us that the verse applies to the married daughter of a priest as well as to one engaged’.131
The approach of Rabbi Akiva is not limited to halakhic contexts, but appears in literary sections as well: the word
nKwhich appears twice in the phrase Y_rKfi
JlKl lXlW7l IIK,‘the heavens and the earth’ (Gen l:l), comes to include the stars, on the one hand, and the plants, on the other (Gen.
Rabba 1:14,p. 12). The same particle in the phrase ‘;1
IlK VK W?p, ‘Ihave gotten a man with the help of the Lord’ (Gen 4:1), is interpreted in the sense of ‘with’, signifying that the affection between partners in a married couple depends on the Divine Presence.L32 In the sentence lY3i7 IlK
IJTbK ‘Vl,‘And God was with the lad’, (Gen 21:20) the word
nKcomes to include Ishmael’s property and household, which received the Lord’s blessing.133
These examples and others led Heschel to conclude, correctly, that this style of literal interpretation is characteristic of the school of Rabbi Akiva, as opposed
tothe school of Rabbi Yishmael, which refused to interpret those scriptures literally.‘”
(2)
Significance of each and every detailWhile the
peshatinterpretation recognized the possibility of interpreting Scrip- ture using conventional literary means, the
demshinterpretation assigned meanings to even the tiniest unit of language, the letter.la Furthermore, as Scripture in its entirety was considered the word of God, its interpretation assigned meaning to the form of the text, as well as to its content. Thus, not only the details, but also the order in which they appear were considered significant.
This style of interpretation is particularly characteristic of Rabbi Akiva, who, according to the tradition, was a disciple of Nahum of Gamzu (also called Nahum ha-Amsoni). It was said of Nahum of Gamzu that he could explain every particle IlK, the
nofa accusativi,in the biblical text as intending some new meaning. The story which is told in a baraita 129 about his inability to interpret thus the particle
nKin the phrase ‘You shall fear the Lord, your God’ (Deut
‘*’
Heschel, Theology, 1, 183-98.‘a Heinemann, Darkhei ha-Aggada, 103-29.
lr) t3. T. Bava Kamma 41b; B. T. Pesahim 22b.
568
Rabbi Akiva uses a similar method in interpreting biblical phrases which Rabbi Yishmael explains by the category ‘the Tora spoke in common parlance’.
Thus Rabbi Akiva explains duplications of nouns such as
VK VK,‘every man’, or duplications of verbs such as ha- hn;-r,
Illan JlW;r, 771 1179etc. We often find this exacting type of interpretation in halakhic midrashim issuing from the school of Rabbi Akiva, especially in the
Sifra.‘yOther Sages use a similar method in explaining a word which appears more than once in a given verse or section. For example, the word t31V, ‘this day’, appears three In
P.T. Sota 5:7,2Oc; Gen. Rabba 1:14, p. 12; 22~2, p. 206; 53:15, p. 574“’ B. T. Sanhedrin 51b.
‘I2 Gen. Rabba 22:2, p. 206.
I33 Gem Rabba 53: 15, p. 574.
IN See Epstein, Introduction, 521-22.
569
SC’KIP’I L’Rt IN KABHINI(‘ LITERATIJRE SCRIPTURE IN KARHINI~‘ 1.1-I I-~RAlUKt
times in Exod 16:25. The Mekhilta de-R. Yishmael offers several midrashim based on this repetition:
‘And Moses said: Eat it today, for today is a sabbath to the Lord; today you will not find it in the field’ - Rabbi Zereka says: From this we learn that one should have three meals on the Sabbath . . . Rabbi Eliezer (ben Hyrcanus) says: If you become worthy, by keeping the Sabbath, you will be saved from three misfortunes - from the day of Gog (and Magog), from the birth pangs of the Messiah and from the day of the Final Judgement (Mekhilta de-R. Yishmael, Wayassa 4, pp. 16869).
The appearance of the word i7’IY, ‘congregation’, three times in Num 3524-25 is understood as hinting at the legal procedure for capital cases, which must be tried before a count of thirty judges (;1’1Y = ten men).135
The Sages’ sense of the need to interpret the meaning of each and every expression of Scripture is also revealed in their attempt to explain proper names. For example, Rabbi Meir interpreted the names of the kings of Sodom and its neighbouring cities:
Bera - for he was a son of evil (Ben ra‘)
Bersha - for he was a son of wickedness (hen resha) Shinav - for he would suck up money (shoc?v mammon)
Shemabar - for he took wings (sdm Ever) to fly and obtain wealth Bela - whose inhabitants were swallowed up (derivation of the verb bela‘)
(Genesis Rabba 41:5, pp. 409-10).
Similarly, Rabbi Meir and his colleague, Rabbi Yoshua ben Karha, interpreted the names of the princes of the tribes of Ephraim and Menasseh (Num 1: lo), the names mentioned in the book of Ruth and other names mentioned in the Bible.‘%
Thus we can understand the Rabbis’ puzzlement over the many names used by different nations for Mount Hermon in Deut 3:9 ‘The Sidonians call Herrnon Sirion, while the Amorites call it Senir’ or in Deut 4:48 ‘until Mount Sirion that is Hermon’. These verses prompted the question ‘What need do the peoples of the world have of this?’ The answer given is that the mention of the names serves as praise for the Land of Israel. 13’ Similarly, the Rabbis wonder at the three names given to Mount Nebo (Deut 3:27; 32:49) and the three names given to Debir (Josh 15:15, 49). The answer, there too, is that the multiplicity of names is in praise of the Land of Israel (Sifrei, ibid.).
It should not surprise us, then, that the Rabbis took a dim view of anyone who mocked the Bible’s inclusion of seemingly irrelevant texts. Thus, they censured
I” Sifrei Num. 160, p. 220.
Iy, Bather, Agada der Tannaiten, 2,38-39 I” Sifrei Dew. 37, pp. 71-72.
Menasseh, son of Hezekiah, King of Judah ‘who would expound an aggada slandering God, saying, had God nothing better write in the Tora than “In the days of the wheat harvest Reuben went . . .” (Gen 30: 14) or “and Lotan’s sister was Timna” (Gen 36:22)!‘138
The importance attached to each and every letter is also expressed through the Rabbis’ use of notarikon (= votaet.xClV - shorthand, the method of notarii).
Either each letter of a word is interpreted as the beginning of a word, so that a word is a string of first initials, or a word is seen as composed of two separate words.13g Thus the word TW?, ‘dainty’ in Num 11:8 is understood as the first letters of the words t&, ‘dough’, InUJ ‘oil’, and WX, ‘honey’.140 Similarly, the word lT= (the meaning of the word is unclear) in Gen 41:43 is explained as a combination of two words, m andll, ‘this is Joseph who was a father in wisdom, but tender of years’.141
The use of gematria (yuq.u@a?), a system whereby the numerical values of words are computed based on an assignment of a number to each Hebrew letter, may be another manifestation of the Sages’ wish to assign meaning to each and every letter. We should note, however, that gematria hardly exists in Tannaic sources. In Amoraic sources we find a midrashic explanation attribut- ed to Bar Kappara, whereby the 318 members of Abraham’s household men- tioned in Gen 14:14 referred to Eliezer alone, whose name has the numerical value 318, according to the gematria system.14*
I mentioned that the attribution of meaning to every single detail explains the form as well as the content of the text. It should come as no surprise, then, that it is Rabbi Akiva who considers the proximity of certain verses to each other as intentional, and thus, as requiring interpretation.143 We encounter this method of interpretation more than once in Tannaic literature. For example, in an interpretation attributed to the ‘doreshe reshumot’ (‘those who interpret meta- phorically’)*44 we find an explanation of the connection between Exod 22:27
‘You shall not revile God’ and Exod 22:28 ‘You shall not delay to offer from the fullness of your harvest and from the outflow of your presses’: For if you cursed a judge (= God), you will ruin your harvest.145
‘a Sifrei Nun. 112, p. 120; B. T. Sanhedrin 99b.
I39 Bather, Exegetische Terminologie, 1,125-27; Heinemann, Darkhei ha-Aggada, 104-05; Lieber- man, Hellenbm, 69.
I40 Sifrei Num 89, p, 89.
“’ Sifrei Deut 1, p. 8.
I’* Gen. Rabba 44:9, pp. 431-32. On the polemical background of this interpretation, see Urbach,
‘Song of Songs’, 169 n. 77. For a different opinion see Hallewy, Erkhei ha-Aggadah, 168.
I” Sifrei Num. 131, p. 169.
I44 See note 105.
I” Mekhilta de-R. Shimon ben Yohai, ed. Hoffmann, p. 153.
(3) The multiplicity of meanings in Scripture
While the peshat approach seeks to divulge the original meaning of the text, taking into account the context and assuming that each verse or sentence has only one immediate meaning, the midrashic approach assumes that the Bible may contain many different levels of meaning. The combination of this assump- tion with the one discussed previously, that each expression is significant, yielded many midrashic explanations reflecting the meanings assigned to each individual word or phrase. This applies both to the literary as well as the legal sections of the Bible. For example the form K)3Ul, ‘shall defile’, in Lev 11:33 is interpreted by Rabbi Akiva as meaning ‘to defile others’.lti In other words, the unvocalized word K)3Uv may be read in several ways; therefore, a halakha should be deduced from the word.14’ Similarly, the form 525?, ‘shall be eaten’, in Exod 13:3 is explained by the Mekhiltu as an indication that the prohibition applies both to one who eats (!‘aKi) and one who feeds another @qyl).‘48
Apparently, the many midrashim of the ?i7n L;)K (al fiqrei - read the word not as X, but rather as Y) type assume that a single text may have many meanings. This phenomenon, which has been accounted for in different ways,149 does not really aim at explaining the text, since the al tiqrei midrashim are not found in cases of difficult words or forms. Furthermore, even in the rare cases where alternative readings which do not occur in the masoretic text, support the al tiqrei midrashim, lM it seems that these midrashim serve only as a very loose way of connecting certain ideas and opinions with the biblical text.
For example, the Tanna Rabbi Elazar the son of Rabbi Yehuda sought to emphasize the commandment of the separation of 3% (hallu - a portion of dough): ‘Because of the sin of not observing the commandment of hullu, there is rio blessing on what is gathered in . . . as it is written: “I wil appoint over you sudden terror (;1%) . . .” (Lev 26: 16). Don’t read ;-r%a, but rather fi5n>, for hullu’. 15’ Similarly, Bar Kappara, interpreting Deut 23:14 ‘and you shall have a stick with your weapens (~14)’ said: ‘Don’t read (al fiqreQf& ‘your weapons’, but ratherlgre, ‘your ears’, - that if a man hears something improper let him stick his finger in his ear’.lS2 The verse is interpreted as prohibiting gossip. Similarly, Rabbi Yoshiya wanted to encourage people to observe the commandments; he thus expounded Exod 12:17 ‘ “and you shall observe the unleavened bread (MYtl)“. Do not read the verse as such, rather read “and you shall observe the commandments (nllYn?I)“. Just as we do not allow the unleavened bread to remain idle and become leavened, so you should Id M. SOM 5:2.
“’ See also Akiva’s interpretation on Lev 18:22 ‘XWll’ in Sifra Kedoshim 9, 92b; P. T. Sonhedrin 7:9,25a.
‘@ Mekhilto de-R. Yishmoei, Pisho 16, p. 61-62. Berliner, Beitriige, 45.
I” The most comprehensive list, including many similar phenomena, was published by Woldberg, Sefer Dorkhei Hoshinuiim. See also the list in JE 2, 77-86.
lyl Cf. Talmon, ‘Textual Transmission’, 126-28.
I” B. T. Shobbor 32b.
Is2 B. T. Ketubbot 5ti.
572
not neglect the commandments. Rather, if you are given the opportunity to perform a commandment, do it immediately’.153
An outstanding example of a midrash that serves contemporary needs and interests is the midrash applied to Bar-Kokhba: ‘Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai said:
Rabbi Akiva, my teacher used to explain the passage “A star (kokhub) shall come forth out of Jacob” (Num 24:17) thus: Koziba (= Bar Kosiba) shall come forth out of Jacob’.154 The wide diffusion of al tiqrei midrashim in Tannaic sources indicates the tendency of the Sages to associate outside events and factors with the interpretation of the Bible, in both the aggadic and halakhic realms.
The multiplicity of meanings of the biblical text allowed the Sages to explain unusual word-spellings or word-forms which are written one way (ketiv) and read another (qere). For example, the form Kl5 which may mean either K5,
‘not’ or 15 ‘to him’ may be interpreted in both senses. Thus in Lev 25:30 the phrase finlll K15 TVK, ‘that is walled’, is interpreted by Rabbi Elazar bar Yose
‘even though it now has no (K5) wall, but it had one (15) previously’.“’
Similarly, the words of Job 5lVK 15 ?%i71 1;T (Job 13:14) are explained by Rabbi Yoshua ben Hananya in two senses:
That same day Rabbi Yoshua ben Hananya expounded: Job served the Holy One, blessed be He, only from love, as it is written ‘Though he slay me yet will I wait for him’. Thus far the matter rests in doubt (whether it means) ‘I will wait for him (15)’ or ‘I will not (K5) wait’ . . .
(M. Sotu 5:5).156
(4) Luck of consideration for biblical language
While the peshat approach is based on philological-contextual axioms, derush takes a completely free approach to the biblical text. Grammatical forms are interpreted without relating them to their context; the syntactical structure of verses is destroyed; the meaning of words is established based on rather tenuous comparisons; linguistically late terms are projected back into the Bible, etc. . . For example, the Sages wished to find hints of the belief in resurrection of the dead in the Bible and interpreted several scriptures accordingly: the words
?V TK, ‘Then Moses sang’, in Exod 15:l were seen as evidence for the resurrection, since the verb was not used in the past tense - VU TK ‘Moses sang’, but in the future tense 7-V TK ‘Moses shall sing’, and so it refers to what is to come in the future.‘57
Likewise the school of Hillel interpreted Job lO:lO-11 where we find the verbs in the future tense:
Mekhilto de-R. Yirhmoel, Pisho 9; p. 33.
Iy P. T. Tooniyot 4:8,68d. Cf. Lam. Robbo 2:2 ‘Do not read Kokhob (Star) but Kozeb (Liar)’
“’ B. T. Me&lo 3b.
‘% On this verse, see Rosenthal, ‘Textual Variants’, 406-07.
“’ Mekhilto de-R. Yishmoel, Shiro 1, p. 116.
573