Midrash--"to interpret"

• Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

Hi All,

I just wanted to share something neat I learned about Judaism in my class
yesterday.  And I thought it might help all of us understand where some
points of view on this list are coming from.

Our topic was on the "midrash", or interpretation.  This is a structured
method Rabbis use to interpret Biblical passages or words.  While these
"midrashim" are considered very important to Jewish culture and religion,
there is no one body of text (like the RC Catechism) that is considered a
standard "midrash".

There are many kinds of "midrash", but the two main forms are these:
1) Midrash Halachic--interpretation of the Law
2) Midrash Aggadic--"legendary" interpretation (or interp. of Biblical
stories or narratives)

This practice probably began sometime before the destruction of the second
temple (70AD/CE), when being Jewish was a very difficult and confusing
thing.  One person who engaged in "midrash" who is very familiar to us is
Jesus Christ (but don't tell my professor that :) ).  While it was mainly
done between 200-500AD/CE, there were others who continued on until
800AD/CE.  My professor, being a Reform Rabbi (no "-ed"), asserts that
"midrash" is still a valid and useful practice even today.

The methodology for this is unique to me.  Basically, if there is a passage
where all the information does not appear to be present, a discussion of
"midrash" among a group of Rabbis would commence.

For example, words in Hebrew originally did not have any vowels.  Midrash
would be used to determine the exact identity of some words.  Also, in
scriptures where part of the phrase seems to be missing, this would also
commence.

An example of this is found in Genesis 4:8.  The King James Version varies
slightly from a direct reading of the Hebrew (although it was the closest
translation of any version in my class!).  

>From the Hebrew, it reads: "And Cain said to Abel his brother: and it came
to pass, while they were in the field..."

Basically, it makes no sense.  What did Cain say?  (BTW, this happens more
often than not.  Scholars believe it is when a copy-scribe skipped a line
while rewriting the Hebrew and the original has been lost.  Many times in
scripture, we read for ourselves, the scribes copied a line twice by
accident.)  The rabbis would debate this using "midrash".

Also, absolutely any verse from anywhere can be used to defend a particular
position.  The rationale is this, the entire Bible is the Word of God,
therefore, there is no such thing as "out of context".

[My "midrash" to that was:  If that were true, why would God give the Word
out of order or in such a deliberatly confusing manner?--The prof. was
amused by that. :)]

Here is an example we studied in class that I found particularly
interesting:

(The following is a direct quote from a handout we received in class.)

What was the tree from which Adam and Eve ate?  Rabbi (R.) Meir said, it
was really wheat.  But another rabbi questioned "But the Bible speaks of a
tree".  And he was answered "The wheat grew as tall as the cedars of
Lebanon."
	R. Judah b. Ilai is of the opinion that it was the vine bush and they ate
grapes.  Hence the Bible speaks of _the grape clusters of bitterness_
(Deut. 32:32) i.e., those clusters brought bitterness to the world.
	The disciples of Joshua b. Levi said in their master's name: the identity
of the tree was not disclosed and God will never reveal the secret in
deference to human dignity.  Otherwise whenever people would see the tree
they would recall Adam's sin.

(Endquote)

See what I mean?  Anything goes.  No one ever concedes they might be in
error.  Anything you make up yourself also still "counts".

An example of that:

(Quote)

Our rabbis taught: the serpent desired something that was not for it.  The
result was that what it sought was not given and even what he had been
given was taken away from it.  God said "Let the serpent be king of the
animals."  But after it sinned the punishment was decreed _Cursed art thou
of all the animals and of all the beasts of the field_ (Gen. 3:14).  God
said the serpent should walk upright.  Now after its sin the decree was
_You shall crawl on your belly!_ (ibid.).  God intended that the serpent
should eat the same as man.  But after the sin its punishment was _You
shall eat the dust (ibid.).  The serpent said "I will kill Adam and marry
Eve."  But then we read _I will establish enmity between you (serpent) and
Man (v. 15).

(Endquote)

This would be considered a totally legitimate and useful "midrash". 
Despite the fact that there is absolutely no Bible to back up the claims,
and the precoursers to the Biblical punishments are entirely fabricated.


I hope this helps shed some light on a few things,
Anneliese