Emphatic Tales

By: Jonathan Seidel

Midrash, exegesis and oral legends

Midrashim are characterised as oral legends. They were events kept out of the Torah. Events that just didn’t mean the status of inclusion because they were irrelevant but these were indeed real events. This perspective undermines the legacy of rabbinic thinking as well as Midrash’s initial invention.

Midrashim are taken at face value. They are stories compiled in the ethers of Jewish lore but are genuine historical events. Why would the rabbis make them up? Why would the rabbis lie? Already the position mentioned is a misnomer. If the midrash is seen as a genuine story then its authenticity or inauthenticity rests on honesty. To be disingenuous would be to uproot the Torah’s fundamental claim. It makes more sense to acknowledge the authenticity of the story but its inauthenticity to the text. While a true story it did not merit inclusion. It was dually irrelevant to the overall picture of the story. The Sages either did not wish that the people forget these stories or they were forced to compile them. Who wouldn’t want to know about Abraham’s youth or Moses’ reign. The focus on these stories is a bedtime story turned real. It is an oral legend passed from generation to generation. Whether it was Abraham or God who transmitted it, it was passed down. More historical information for the believing Jew. More knowledge of his illustrious heritage.

These oral teachings are akin to the stories told around a campfire. Presumably an ancient campfire here myths and legends were told. Gathering and relaying these tenacious verbal shorts. Moving one’s arms to convey the picture of the event like a game of Pictionary or charades verbalised eloquently. A scene in Vikings portrays this almost identically. As Lagartha puts her children to sleep she tells them the tale of Odin and Thor. Spending a few minutes setting the scene and quickly running through the plot. A story of challenge and victory emphasised with emotion and passion. They aren’t only bedtime stories. Remarks about the gods and their ventures is brought up in conversation surrounding their wits and strength. The people or the person is relayed a message through the mythological route. It is a part of the language. The legends are myth as they cultivate the patterns of societal understanding. It is in their jargon and their culture. A society of orality campaigning its youth concerning its greatest heroes. Without writing it is the narratives that educate the masses.

Lagartha’s model is nordic not Judaic. Oral legends are not relayed in the historical chamber of succession. The Israelites did not pass around the stories for a good inspiration. That is not the way of the Jew. The oral stories were not apart of the culture nor embedded in it. The genuine narratives were written and codified. The history of the Jews was written out. While it does not mention every detail it demonstrates those important to the story. This has caused suspicion and curiosity. Just as Isaac’s elderly life is missing as is Abraham’s youth. Yet there are no stories about Isaac and Rebecca growing old together. The oral legends are seemingly selective in their bedtime reruns. Apparently some legends are more important than others or some people are worth remembering over others. Nevertheless, the narratives told in discussions are dissimilar to the ones told at bedtime. The discussions are the textually endowed and the bedtime are the orally endowed. Yet the latter seep into the subconscious of the Jew. Telling him to hold them to the same level. There is a written law and an oral law thus there is also written stories and oral stories. 

The most obvious reason for this misconception is due to the prevalence of midrash aggada and midrash halakha. If halakha is passed down then so must be aggada. While it can be argued that one was passed down from Sinai and the other wasn’t, it seems to be farfetched. It is far more likely that if they are both midrash they carry the same identity and history. Therefore midrash precedes other aggadot and halakhot. Yet this is itself misconstrues the historical placard. The Taanaitic compilations are not compiling ancient lore but implying exegesis. There is no category called the oral stories only the oral law since it was the only orally transmitted knowledge. The Torah was the original narrative, the lore to the oral law. The written documentation of history and of the profound events that led to the promised land. For all its ups and downs. Creation and revelation just awaiting redemption. The oral law complemented the written word. The scroll that catalogued Jewish history and gleaned its legacy. The law remained the daily routine while the stories were read by parents alongside their children teaching them the values of the sacred heritage. They weren’t orally transmitted at bedtime or in a lullaby but at the table out in front. To read and comprehend the tribal history.

Aggada wasn’t legends inscribed on the hearts of the youth but sermonic deductions from inconclusive history. Why was Abraham chosen? What was Moses doing in exile? Some incorrectly maintain that these stories are unimportant to the overall narrative. Yet a story of Abraham finding God, bashing idols and emerging from a furnace is pretty worthwhile. Not only that these stories are awesome but they more so imply fearsome themes of deducing God rationally, eradicating idolatry and martyrdom. Either of these stories would be incredibly inspirational. At the heart of the ways of forefathers is a sign for the children. This is the epitome of standing up for what you believe in and yet it is omitted from the text. Why would God leave out this critical part of Abraham’s life? Coming of age and maturing to receive the will of God. It is not mentioned because it is not a legend passed down but a configured explanation for Abraham’s choosiness. The story is a product of inquiry that leads to a mythic element. A fictional story of his awesome accomplishments. Why was Abraham chosen? Here are the stories. Yet the Torah doesn’t say this because it isn’t historical but valuational.

The stories touch on cornerstones of questionable time loops and unknown eras of time. Moses lived with Jethro for forty years but the Torah time skips. The midrashim turn his absence as a coin for king of Ethiopia. Yet like Abraham it is all based on unknown data. The text works back from what is presented. Abraham built up following so he must have converted them but what made them wish to follow him he must have had some crazy achievement. The Abraham stories are eerily similar to Gideon and Hanina, Mishael and Azariah. Though while Abraham and Moses receive such legends Isaac doesn’t, Aaron doesn’t not even Jacob for the twenty-two years Joseph is away. The concept is inquired and the text is then derived to what is happening to the other characters. These are not depictions but potentialities. The midrashim are not teaching the missing information but inspiring through the possibility. It is a way of educating lessons through embellished ideas. Narratives missing are unimportant to the text but midrashim repurposing is not bringing those texts back but answering the reader’s questions. Estimating a possibility with an extreme solution. 

Midrashim are not to tell history not even the aggadot can be construed as such. Even stories of the Sages making their way to their fellow teacher’s house cannot be verified. It is merely utilised for legal or theological purposes. The narrative is sermonic. The Torah itself has a strong moral component but it does wish to describe the historical memory of the people. Tracing their development. The midrashim wish to extend and add their own points of ethical and theological power. Yet unlike the biblical text they aren’t to define the true youth of Abraham or mid-life activity of Moses. It is more about ascertaining wisdom for God’s decisions. Since the king of Ethiopia narrative is not only in conflict with other midrashim which omit the entire saga but even the midrash itself has contradictions with other Ethiopian narratives. There is a jumble of possibilities. Different wordings and embellishments entice a more elaborate story. While at times it seems there is an attempt to fill in the holes of the story, it is done specifically to the present protagonist. More so filling in the gaps also has a way of shining a brighter light on the adventures and achievements thereby increasing their prestige and greatness to the reader. 

In turn, the midrashim are remarkable fan-fiction created by early exegetes. The early biblical commentators extended on the verses rather than explaining the simplicity of them. In a proto-Rashi method they proscribed a foregoing reading of the events. Yet unlike Rashi did not quote a legend they cultivated it. Enamoured at the missing pieces filled them in. What better than to add some flare and elegance to the story. There were inquires needed to be solved. What made Moses so great? Where did he go? Embellishing his awesomeness only marvelled this figure further. He was no longer the greatest prophet but a prominent warrior and king. A man who didn’t stutter because of age or birth defect but due to an angel’s switching of the hands. A man whose mother and sister were the two maidservants who resisted Pharaoh. A way of truly consolidating a worthy hero’s journey. It all points to Moses. A man destined for greatness victorious at every turn. A genuine liberator and kind soul. The peshat values remain and are assigned to the midrash. His character and his will are transported into fiction. 

The idea of embellished narratives is not all too insane. If the Sages recorded they must be genuine. These are stories, true history, they wouldn’t make it up. Yet this is the kind of storytelling. Storytelling is a way of teaching moral lessons rather than teaching history. Maimonides took this further to demythologise the biblical text. While that can be seen as its own characterisation it doesn’t deride the obvious allegorical insinuations of midrashim. Maimonides' attempt does not undermine the multitude of sources allegorising rather than accepting at face value. Not based on a dictum but rather based on literary style. The method is exegetical. It isn’t reverse tracing. It is working to illuminate that which is unclear. The halakhic midrashim operate in a similar manner. It is the difference between the midrash and the Mishnah. The Mishnah is written like the Torah. It is cryptic and unclear until deciphered by the oral dynamic. The midrash is like the talmud, it extrapolates and sources its oral dynamic. In the same way, the narrative aspects are extrapolated from texts not legends of an oral community. 

The narrative implication for education is the motto of Ibn Gabirol and Halevi. Instead of writing systematic works they wrote dialogues like Plato. Parables for more lessons. Yet unlike the peshat of Franco-German Jewry, midrash had a separate function. The text was known through the lexicographical order by the Geonim. They didn’t interpret texts by the plain meaning because they read the plain meaning. The seeming linguistic illiteracy prompted contextual understandings rather than syntactic explanations. Not to say Rashbam or Bechor Shor interpreted the text incorrectly but it is to say the linguistic understanding was not based on the words themselves but the narrative’s flow. The linguistics of Old Sepharad had passed. Turning to the primary exegetical function was to understand the questions. While it is possible that these stories were oral they were Sinaitic. Meaning just as the oral law existed so did these oral legends. Yet these were not legends of transmitted ancestry but of sermonic wisdom. They were on the books and just like halakhic midrash, aggadic midrash also sourced these narratives in the biblical text.  

Returning, Halevi’s platonic style it demonstrates a lucid characterisation of philosophical interpretation. Midrashim do this too. The stories of Abraham are about resilience and philosophical rationalism. The ability to deduce the Ineffable without any prophetic vision or miraculous intervention. Merely the human mind can acknowledge this truth. The midrash unlike the Torah is not explicitly as a mashal and nimshal model. Halevi’s program is but wound up in the storytelling itself. The idea of “derash” is to inquire. To explain the unexplainable. The Torah may be a cryptic book but its legal fragmentation is not the same for the narratives. The narratives are straightforward. The entire purpose of the Torah is to be narrative heavy law hinted while the Talmud is the exact opposite. The idea of figuring out the gaps and biblical inquires only produces more extensive literary scholarship. It is rather an extension of ascertaining historical legitimacy at the same time as imploring ideas. Prior to Plato, dialogues were metaphorical narratives of famous figures. Tales of their truth not the reform or complete a text but rather to explain the text in its totality. Halevi’s model was stripped of the biblical heroes and more focused on philosophy while the midrash is unafraid to place those figures forward to educate and elucidate.         

While this may seem odd and outlandish. It is not. Midrash has usurped the simplistic assertions of the biblical text. The maimonidean semi-naturalism has caused backlash in the opposite direction. Between the mythological literalism and supra-rationalism the decision to account for fictional adaptations becomes realised through dubious apologetics. Whether inspired by Christian lore or Islamic philosophy, the impacted party developed a strong fascination to their desired result disparaging the other side. The anti-maimonidean side collaborates the ashkenazi perspective that disregards the Geonic-Andalusian tradition of allegory while the Maimonidean tradition disregards the Franco-German tradition of literalism. Maimonides can be brainwashed by Aristotle as can Tosafot by pagans. Sefer Chasidim makes numerous remarks about werwolves and other mythic creatures. It reads like a synthesis of Jewish piety with pagan characters. While Maimonides turned philosophy Jewish, Tosafot turned allegories literal. Branding the half millennium documentation as accursed and erroneous. 

The Franco-German literalists do not stop there. Their literal description passed into the esoteric teachings. Combining the mythic imagination with neoplatonic philosophy. Hiding the philosophical legacy behind mythical formulation. Cultivating the Kabbalah as a uniquely Jewish orientation in contrast to philosophy which was only modelled in the Jewish vision. Kabbalah developed to comprehend the facets of the universe through signs. The issue with Kabbalah had little issue if only that it demanded literalism. God truly extracted himself from the universe. Ariz’l took it even further with his reincarnation project. While anointing his student Chaim Vital as the reincarnation of R Akiva and his wife R Akiva’ father in law. Maimonides as Adam’s left peya and Nahmanides as Adam’s right peya. Each of these has philosophical explanation but many have quoted these terms literally. Both of the great scholars: one was a mystic and the other a philosopher. Easy to explain and yet incanted as an accurate depiction of reality. Reality and fiction is blurred by the esoteric claims to authenticity. Even the Zohar acts in such tremendous commentarial deceit. A commentary that makes truth claims unmentioned in the text. Cute narratives co-opted as literalism as more and more are added.

To only just add a single extra detail. Midrash is uniquely Jewish but the style is not. Christians have interpreted the sons of God as a fallen angels. Rashbi rejects this opinion and proposes an alternative as the sons of nobles. Instead of adding the mythical flare he stays to the pragmatic reading. While rejected outright, the case is still made based on the textual reading. A flawed reading is still an alleged historical depiction. There is a gap since it is unclear who these individuals are. Their names are cryptic. Thus taking the literal route they insinuate these are angelic beings yet such a statement is ill regarded by Jewish tradition. This is exact rejection for the Jew. The goal is not to paint history. To not vaguely interpret the text into oblivion. To piece an imperfect narrative. To tell the whole story. Rather it is a symbolic name for nobility and coercion. Yet R Meir does uphold the christian option. Cain’s daughters are married to the fallen angels. Not only is there disagreement concerning the correct history but rather suggested myth. Were the Sages connecting the dots or inserting a theory? A legend foretold that Rashbi wished to desist from and demean?

Looking at the sources: the sons of god are mentioned in Genesis and Job. Even in Job they seem to be quite mythical. They come to the table with Satan. The idea of fallen angels interprets more but the idea of divine beings makes sense. The only issue is that angels are never called sons. This is a classic ploy of trying to clean up contextually instead of linguistically. If the daughters of man are mortals then the sons of God must be angels. Yet angels are never interpreted as such. If they are fallen how do they appear in Job next to God? Especially if Job is afterwards did they leave their wives, were they redeemed? If we focus on context God never punishes them or really does anything to them. He grows angry with man but it was the fallen angels not man. Even the Nephilim seem to get a pass and despite divine destruction they are still alive when the spies are sent. Nephilim aren’t the children of the fallen angels since the text doesn’t say that despite claims to the contrary. Apparently nefillim aren’t a different human race because they seem to have never been birthed nor died with everyone else during the flood. Either they are an animal or they are motto for type of person. Since the latter is most probably implausible given its unique position but it does make sense reading the text where these beings appear and somehow survive the flood.     

The nephillim did not survive as Caleb came to Hebron and saw the trio Anakite sons and then the spies harking on ancient history grossly exaggerated the nephillim. So in this regard the nephillim may have been neanderthals or maybe a more unintelligent race. It is not clear if they are a problem or not. They weren’t the children because the text says “were/lived and also” meaning they preceded the sons of God. Who were the sons of God, these mighty warriors? The very next person called a warrior is Nimrod twice in consecutive verses. Back to the sons of man. It is possible to read it differently. In the previous genealogy mentioned there were men and women born but with the sons of god there are only women and therefore an abundance to choose from. There was no matchmaking choosing based on appearance. God grows angry at them because these men acted promiscuously. What happens to the nephillim is unknown but it is not clear God has a problem with man. The problem is the sons of God. Nephillim were just part of the whole order God planned to uproot yet Noah is the one righteous. The one who reminds God of what he intended to do. He is the Adam 2.0.   

Unlike, the sons of god, Noah followed God. In a sense the sons of god acted as if they were God. They committed the same sin as Adam. As the son of God I can do whatever I want and eat whatever I want even when told not to by dear old dad. They gave themselves the same authority. It is Israel that is given the titled of sons of God not taken by force. If they are merely greedy men then the Job connection is perplexing. You can’t have it both ways either they are angels who then cohabited with humans or they aren’t angels. It is hard to argue against Job but at the same time the Genesis case is hard as well. Yet if the title is a symbol for a status then it may be angelic in a way that is divine-like. They are called sons of god not because they were angels but because they acted as if they were. It wasn’t just some of them, some elites because then God wouldn’t destroy the world. It has to be widespread as noted with Noah. The sons of god are angels in Job or at least angelic. What isn’t the case is comparative in Genesis. Rather the sign is polemical in Genesis. How they attempted to be angelic but not as messengers of God but to be God like as Adam and Eve learned from their error. 

Furthermore, the sons of god are contrasted with the daughters of man, a more poetic association than its angelic pull in Job. It isn't to say that this is not genuine but it is to recognise the linguistic affiliation. Daughters of man are unique here as are the sons of god nearly unique in all of biblical liturgy. If not for the case in Job it would be assumed these are superior beings but not angels. It is the angels who marry the beautiful girls but such affiliation despite its evident linkage is implausible not because the text is insufficient but the oral tradition disagrees. Despite the textual symmetry the plausibility is unlikely. The Midrash is connecting the two texts in a Tosfot like style. Here are two cases where the words are similar they must mean the same thing but this is not always the case. Rashbi rejected this interpretation as blasphemous. Even if the word is the same it doesn't mean the interpretation is. The preference for the term is to relate it to the daughters of man as it creates a symmetrical circuit. Since there is no further mention of daughters of man it cannot be assumed that this means humans while the others means angels as this fails to corroborate the angelic function in the rest of the canon. If words are related so to the rest of the canon. In this regard, the use of this duality is to borrow the Job term in order to apply a theme without applying the definition wholly.       

The mistaken position has much to do with the literalism when it is really the symbolism that has more profound meaning and accuracy. Midrash is an exposition of educational wisdom. How to impart truth to the living community. Symbolism is parlayed in the Torah but while Maimonides takes an extreme position, a more mellow approach accepts the literalism of the Torah but not of the Midrash. While the Torah teaches history, the Midrash teaches meaning. It expands on the Torah’s layer not unveiling hidden secrets. For too long the exegetical traditions have been retooled into the full Torah instead of recognising them for their allegorical fiction and their commentarial ingenuity. An ancient style that propagates the accomplished excellence of our favourite heroes.