Esav and the Salt and Straw: What the midrash may have really meant

When school teachers wish to prove that Esav was a dishonest sneak, they usually reference the famous Rashi (based on an older midrash) about Esav and his allegedly disingenuous questions:

who understood hunting: [He knew how] to trap and to deceive his father with his mouth and ask him,“Father, how do we tithe salt and straw?” His father thereby thought that he was scrupulous in his observance of the commandments.

יודע ציד: לצוד ולרמות את אביו בפיו, ושואלו אבא היאך מעשרין את המלח ואת התבן, כסבור אביו שהוא מדקדק במצות:

Rashi's commentary isn't an anthology of midrashim. Frequently, Rashi cites a midrash out of place or out of context. He'll change the meaning of a midrash, or choose one or two midrashim from among several on the same subject. Rashi does this, I believe, because in his commentary, midrashim are used for a specific purpose, namely, they serve to smooth out rough spots in the text, and to resolve difficulties in the language of the Torah.

As he told us on Gen 3:8, his object is not share or to popularize "cute" midrashim, but to " give... Aggadah which serve to clarify the words of Scripture in a way which fits its words"

The midrash cited at the begining of this post is, I believe, an example of Rashi doing violence to the plain meaning of the midrash for the sake of rescuing the text from a perceived anamoly.

My explanation begins with Gen 25:28 which reads: "And Issac loved Esav because of the game in his mouth." (tzayid b'fiv)  Tzayid b'fiv is a hebrew idiom, which suggests Esav is something like a lion bringing home food in his mouth, or a mother bird dropping worms into her chick's gapping beak. In either case, it's a materialistic and, therefore, difficult explanation for Issac's preference. The plain language makes Issac look shallow, and weak, and more than a little absurd. How can we respect a man who loves a son merely because the son provides his father with meat?

For Rashi such a reading  is unacceptable. Therefore he tells us

in his mouth: As the Targum renders: into Isaac’s mouth. The Midrashic interpretation is: with Esau’s mouth, for he would entrap him and deceive him with his words. — [From Tanchuma, Toledoth 8]

בפיו: כתרגומו בפיו של יצחק. ומדרשו בפיו של עשו שהיה צד אותו ומרמהו בדב

Trap him and trick him how? With his words.

As Rashi reads it, Genesis 25:27 tells us more

27. And the youths grew up, and Esau was a man who understood hunting, a man of the field, whereas Jacob was an innocent man, dwelling in tents.

כז. וַיִּגְדְּלוּ הַנְּעָרִים וַיְהִי עֵשָׂו אִישׁ יֹדֵעַ צַיִד אִישׁ שָׂדֶה וְיַעֲקֹב אִישׁ תָּם יֹשֵׁב אֹהָלִים

This verse also has a perceived anomaly. The second part of the descriptions ("man of the field" and "dweller in tents") are roughly atithetical; the first parts ("skilled in trapping" and "simple man") are not. What happened to the parallelism?

The Hebrew adjective tam suggests integrity, or even innocence. To create a parallel  between the first parts of the description, "skilled in trapping" needs to be construed as the opposite of tam. the midrash does this with three examples of Esav's duplicity. Of these three, Rashi chooses one, and only one, to illustrate the point: The story of the straw and salt

I don't know why Rashi selected this example instead of the other three, but I do think most readers today fail to understand the midrash correctly.

Many readers of Rashi use the story of the salt and straw to suggest that Esav was a pious fraud. Like the men who wear large shtreimals, but cheat on their taxes and skip davening, Esav, in their conception, was a master of deception, who used sincere-sounding questions to deceive his father. Indeed, Rash picks us on this idea elsewhere by comparing Esav to a pig, a non-kosher animal that extends its forelegs as if to show off how kosher it is, fooling all who allow themselves to be deceived.

Midrash is not a monolith, and the midrash's view of Esav, especially, is complicated, and full of competing and mutually exclusive ideas. Though it is true that some of our Rabbis did think of Esav as a pious fraud, I will argue that the author of the salt and straw story did not.

First, let us recognize that midrash isn't history. It isn't telling us that such a conversation actually took place. If you went back in time, you would not find Esav and Yizchack discussing tithes. Rather, this story was created by the author of the midrash for the purpose of conveying an idea.

To understand the author's purpose we must begin with the blessings Yaakov received when he was dressed as Esav. They relate entirely and exclusively to the physical world: Esav is promised: tal hashamayim ushmanei haaretz; the dew from the sky and the fat of the earth. Later, at the end of the story, when Yaakov leaves for Aram and is no longer disguised, his father blesses him again, this time saying: ve’yiten lecha es birkas Avraham; he passes Avraham’s spiritual legacy on to Yaakov, and we're led to believe that this blessing had been reserved for Yaakov all along..

It would seem from this that Yitzchak's intention was to let Yaakov stay in his tent and live a life of contemplation and study while, Esav, the man of the field, contended with the world and provided for his religious brother. If, as most of our Rabbis say, Yitzchak was planning for the future of the Jewish nation when he blessed his sons, perhaps intended to set up a sort of Holy Roman Empire (forgive the ahistorical reference) with Yaakov, as Pope, in charge of the nation's spiritual life, and Esav, as Emperor, responsible for feeding and protecting and otherwise sustaining the religious center.

Esav, having grown up in his father's tent, and eaten at his father's table, was aware of this plan, we can assume. The salt and straw midrash tells us that its author thought Esav was unhappy with this plan.

In the ancient world, salt and straw were important preservatives. Salt protected meat from spoiling, and straw was used as a packing material, or as insulation. Yitzchak planned for Esav to be Yaakov's protector, to serve as his straw and salt. The Midrash says Esav asked "How are straw and salt tithed (or "fixed" in the language of the original midrash*) Conceptually, this is like asking "How are straw and salt brought into the realm of holiness?" By putting such a question in Esav's mouth, the author of the midrash is letting us know that, in his view, Esav wants something more. He doesn't want to spend his life merely sustaining Yaakov; instead, he wants a holy purpose, too.

I'll leave it to others to explain why, in the fullness of time, this more-positive image of Esav was lost. My guess it has to do with the fact that Esav was, at the turn of the millenium, linked with Rome. Before that association was made, I suppose, more positive opinions of Esav could be entertained. Not so once the Rabbis had paid themselves the compliment of associating the super-power of the day with their own great ancestor's twin brother. From then on Esav was evil, unmitigated, and unredeemable. The salt and straw midrash gives us a glimmer of another point of view.

This is the language of the original midrash:

ויהי עשו איש יודע ציד

אמר רבי אבהו:

שודני, צידני, צד בבית, צד בשדה.

בבית, היך מתקנין מילחא?

בשדה, היך מתקנין תבנא?

---

Search for more information about salt and straw at 4torah.com.

Salt and Straw

PART I

The rabbis teach that [Esav] did perform the mitzvah of honoring his father, and he even asked his father about the need to take tithes from salt and straw - which of course is completely unnecessary, and represented Eisav's ability to appear religious when it suited his purpose.

If you've studied Rashi as an adult, you know his commentary isn't an anthology of midrashim. Frequently, Rashi cites a midrash out of place or out of context. He'll change the meaning of a midrash, or choose one or two midrashim from among several on the same subject. Rashi does all of this, I believe, because in his commentary, midrashim are used for a specific purpose, namely, they serve to smooth out rough spots in the text, and to resolve difficulties in the language of the Torah.

Rashi's object, you see, isn't to share or to popularize midrashim, but to " give... Aggadah which serve to clarify the words of Scripture in a way which fits its words" (Gen 3:8)

The midrash cited at the begining of this post is, I believe, an example of Rashi doing violence to the plain meaning of the midrash for the sake of rescuing the text from a perceived anamoly. Gen 25:28 reads: "And Issac loved Esav because of the game in his mouth." (tzayid b'fiv) This is a hebrew idiom, which suggests Esav as either a kind of lion bringing home food in his mouth, or as a mother bird dropping worms into her chick's gapping beak. In either case, it's a material and, therefore, difficult explanation for Issac's favoritism. The plain language of the text make Issac look shallow, and weak, and more than a little absurd. For Rashi, this is unacceptable. Therefore he tells us "But, its [ie tzayid b'fiv's ] Midrashic interpretation is: "With the mouth of Eisv" [meaning] he would trap him and trick him with his words

Trap him and trick him how? The answer Rashi gives appears on the previous verse, Gen 25:27, where we're told that "Esav was skilled in trapping, a man of the field, and Jacob was a simple man, a dweller in tents." The perceived anamoly here is that the second part of the descriptions ("man of the field" and "dweller in tents") are roughly atithetical; the first parts ("skilled in trapping" and "simple man") are not.

The Hebrew adjective tam suggests integrity, or even innocence. To create a diametric opposition between the first and second parts of the description, "skilled in trapping" needs to be construed as the opposite of tam. Three examples of Esav's duplicity are provided in the midrash, and Rashi chooses one, and only one, to illustrate the point, writing " ..he would ask him: "Father, how are salt and hay tithed?" [Though, he actually knew that there is no requirement that these items be tithed.] His father would thereby think that he meticulously observed the mitzvos."

I don't know why Rashi selected the bit about the straw and hay over the two other examples of Esav's dishonesty provided by the Midrash, but I will argue in Part II that the story itself has been misunderstood by readers of Rashi.

PART II

..he would ask him: "Father, how are salt and hay tithed?" [Though, he actually knew that there is no requirement that these items be tithed.] His father would thereby think that he meticulously observed the mitzvos."

Many readers of Rashi use the story of the salt and straw to suggest that Esav was a pious fraud. Like the men who wear large shtreimals, but cheat on their taxes and skip davening, Esav, in their conception, was a master of deception, who used sincere-sounding questions to deceive his father. Indeed, Rash picks us on this idea by comparing Esav to a pig, a non-kosher animal that extends its forelegs as if to show off how kosher it is, fooling all who allow themselves to be deceived.

Midrash is not a monolith, and the midrash's view of Esav, especially, is complicated, and full of competing and mutually exclusive ideas. Though it is true that some of our Rabbis did think of Esav as a pious fraud, I will argue that the author of the salt and straw story decidedly did not.

First, let us recognize that midrash isn't history. It isn't telling us that such a conversation actually took place. If you went back in time, you would not find Esav and Yizchack discussing tithes. Rather, this story was created by the author of the midrash for the purpose of conveying an idea.

To understand the author's purpose we must begin with the blessings Yaakov received when he was dressed as Esav. They relate entirely and exclusively to the physical world: tal hashamayim ushmanei haaretz; the dew from the sky and the fat of the earth. Later, at the end of the story, when Yaakov leaves for Aram and is no longer disguised, his father blesses him again, this time saying: ve’yiten lecha es birkas Avraham; he passes Avraham’s spiritual legacy on to Yaakov.

It would seem from this that Yitzchak's intention was to let Yaakov stay in his tent and live a life of contemplation and study; while, Esav, the man of the field, contended with the world and provided for his religious brother. If, as most of our Rabbis say, Yitzchak was planning for the future of the Jewish nation when he blessed his sons, perhaps he was also setting up a sort of Holy Roman Empire (forgive the ahistorical reference) with Yaakov, as Pope, in charge of the nation's spiritual life, and Esav, as Emperor, responsible for feeding and protecting and otherwise sustaining the religious center.

Esav, having grown up in his father's tent, and eaten at his father's table, was aware of this plan, we can assume. The salt and straw midrash tells us that its author thought Esav was unhappy with this plan.

In the ancient world, salt and straw were important preservatives. Salt protected meat from spoiling, and straw was used as a packing material, or as insulation. Yitzchak planned for Esav to be Yaakov's protector, to serve as his straw and salt. The Midrash says Esav asked "How are straw and salt tithed (or "fixed" in the language of the original midrash) Conceptually, this is like asking "How are straw and salt brought into the relam of holiness?" By putting such a question in Esav's mouth, the author of the midrash is letting us know that, in his view, Esav wants something more. He doesn't want to spend his life merely sustaining Yaakov; instead, he wants a holy purpose, too.

I'll leave it to others to explain why, in the fullness of time, this more-positive image of Esav was lost. My guess it has to do with the fact that Esav was, at the turn of the millenium, linked with Rome. Before that association was made, I suppose, more positive opinions of Esav could be entertained. Not so once the Rabbis had paid themselves the compliment of associating the super-power of the day with their own great ancestor's twin brother. From then on Esav was evil, unmitigated, and unredeemable. The salt and straw midrash gives us a glimmer of another point of view.

Notes on the blasphemer

At the end of Emor, we find the story of the blasphemer. See how its told in the chumash here.

What follows are some midrashic notes. Any similarity to fan fiction is a coincidence.

A great post no one will read (though it was fun to write)

IN WHICH I EXPLAIN WHY YITZCHAK=37 AND RIVKA=3 ARE BOTH ON VERY SHAKY GROUNDS

As long time readers of this blog know, I'm on something of a crusade for the unlucky midrashim, by which I mean the old interpretations no one studies or remembers. As a corollary, I'd also like people to stop thinking that the lucky midrashim are the sole Torah Truth when other, equally valid, midrashim take other positions, or when Rishonim object outright to the lucky midrash.

One very famous lucky midrash tells us Rivka was 3 on her wedding day. Its a terrible teaching for all sorts of reasons -- Why should we think of the Patriarch as a pedophile? -- and one I'd like to see defeated, instead of glorified.

As this post will explain, there are good, Torah grounds to retire "Rivka was 3" (1). It  is contradicted by another, unlucky midrash, and at least one rishon objects to it on logical grounds. Also, as you will see, the text of the lucky midrash itself is questionable.

See more after the jump

Ground rules for a #midrashchat

I'm going to be blunt and unkind: Most people I know, both here on the blogs and in real life, are in the grips of false and indefensible ideas about midrashim. People on the right are too eager to accept everything literally, while people on the left have the maddening habit of waving everything away as a "metaphor"* Meanwhile, neither group attempts to consider what the author of the midrash has in mind or is attempting to do. When you have a #midrashchat with either group the end result is anger, frustration and then you get accused of either (a) being a heretic or (b) demeaning the Rabbis

*Also frustrating is the serial misuse of the word metaphor. Lefties who label every midrash a "metaphor" almost always have in mind an "allegory" not a "metaphor"

So in the interest of my own piece of mind, I am establishing the following ground rules for a #midrashchat

KEY RULE #1:  A #midrashchat must be about the midrash qua the midrash itself. As a result, we will avoid people who:

• Think every word of every midrash is capital T true in a literal historical sense. These people are not interested in discovering what the midrash is actually saying. They are interested in announcing facts about the world. 
• Think its cool to present the midrash's hidden or "real" meaning when they haven't bothered to consult the original source material. As with the first group, these people are not interested in dealing with the midrash itself. They are interested in spreading a message, and they are using the midrash as its vehicle. 

KEY RULE #2: A #midrashchat is best enjoyed with people who have been nominally educated. As a result we will avoid people who: 

• Are not aware that many of our most cherished midrashim are first found in some form or another in the Pseudepigrapha
• Are not aware that midrashim often contradict other midrashim
• Are not aware that some midrashim actually do contain literal or historical truths
• Are not aware that Chazal composed midrashim and,  at times, modified the midrashim they inherited. 

KEY RULE #3: To participate in a #midrashchat you need to be able to think historically. This means:

• You must be able distinguish the facts of a midrash from the views of its author. For example, you need to be able to wrap your head around the possibility the Rabbi XYZ firmly believed that [whatever] happened even if you and I and other residents of the 21st century are positive that [whatever] could not have happened.
• You must recognize that ancient standards of proof were much lower than modern standards of proof, in part because our epistemology is different,(we've become more skeptical.) As a result, our ideas of what constitutes science and history are very different from theirs.
• You must be ok with the possibility that Chazal believed things you and I and other residents of the 21st century  find fanciful or barbaric, and you must be able to recognize that saying this is not a criticism of Chazal. 

Without a promise, I am hereby promising not to get sucked into any more #midrashchats that would violate any of these rules.

Search for more information about ### at4torah.com

Keturah

Rashi was one of the best at spotting and solving textual anomalies, often using midrashim, or even modified midrashim, to explain away the problem. Once in a while, though, Rashi adresses an anomaly, that may have been nothing of the sort, and his solution enters the popular imagination, becoming one of those things that "everybody knows".

An example from this week's sedra:

The verse [Gen 25:1] says: And again, Abraham took a wife, and her name was Keturah, but every school child is taught to ignore the plain meaning of the words on the page [1], and to instead accept that Keturah was Hagar. Why? Because Rashi said it. And why did Rashi say it? For one reason, and one reason only [2]: In verse 6 the word pilagshim is choser, ie: with no vav yud. Says Rashi on the spot: "It is written lacking [to denote] that there was only one concubine, [ie Hagar]"

Only, hold on: In the MT the word is malay (spelled with a vav yud.)

Rashi's comment here, like many of his comments, is based on a midrash, in this case one found in Berashis Rabba. This suggests that the Midrash's author also had a text with a vav-less yud-less pilaghshim (which in turn suggests that our Torah's text is defective)

Alternatively, its possible that the midrash in Berashis Rabba isn't addressing the text at all. The midrash continues (and Rashi cites this elsewhere, though in the midrash the two thoughts are not seperated) that Hagar is called Keturah because her deeds were beautiful like incense (Keturah puns on incense) [3]. Perhaps Hagar is construed by the midrash as a meritorious woman for the glory of her husband Abraham, and not because of an anamoly in the text. It would not be unlike Rashi to use a midrash written for one purpose to address another.

Given the Rashi does not cite every single Midrash [2], I thinks its reasonable to conclude that we are only aware that the midresh said Ketruah and Hagar were the same person because of an accident, the accident of Rashi's choser text.

FOOTNOTES

[1] Alas, no school child is taught that the Rashbam disagrees with both Rashi and the misdrash and insists that Keturah was a third wife, and not Hagar redux. You're invited to complain about this to your local school authorities.

[2] I expect those of you who don't know how to learn Rashi are already yelling: "One reason only? What do you mean? It's in the midrash!" You are reminded that Rashi does not cite every single midrash. He picks and chooses among them for two purposes. As he says himself on Gen 3:8: There are many aggadic midrashim, and our Rabbis have already arranged them in their proper setting, in Breishis Rabbah and in other collections of midrashim. I have only come (1) to give the simple meaning (pshat) of Scripture, and (2) for aggadah that resolves the words of Scripture...

[3] Rashi also suggests that she was called keturah because "she "tied her womb" and did not mate with any man from the time she separated from Avraham" ["Tied" also puns on keturah.] This explanation is not found in BR, but is from Pirkei de R. Eliezer

Lots of questions about a Rav Yose Midrash

---

Last night I saw a Midrash on Psalms that helps to illustrate some of what I wish my fellow Jews would understand about Midrashim.

Vashti's tail and some thoughts about Medrash

Penina Besdin Kraut, writing in Ten Da'at, gives an old solution to an old problem:

How then, as a teacher, do I handle this midrash concerning Vashti’s tail? I can simply decide that since I do not understand this midrash, I will not relate it to my class. To merely present a midrash in order for it to be ridiculed is counterproductive. I have too much respect for the Rabbis to present them in an outlandishly inexplicable manner, and too much concern for my precarious preteen students to put them into a position where they must choose between respect for chazal and their knowledge of what seems impossible and nonsensical within reality. If all I have to present to them is that the Rabbis say that Vashti grew a tail, then I will choose not to teach this midrash.

However, I have another alternative. If I can take this midrash and interpret the words in such a way that an inner meaning emerges which conforms to reason and reveals a hidden truth, and thereby highlights the purpose of midrash and the wisdom and insight of our Rabbis, then I will choose to teach and share this midrash with my class. As the Rambam says, “... the sages knew as clearly as we do the difference between the impossibility of the impossible and the existence of that which must exist.... [The] sages did not speak nonsense, and it is clear... that the words of the sages contain both an obvious and hidden meaning. Thus, whenever the sages spoke of things that seem impossible, they were employing the style of riddle and parable.” [Rambam, “Introduction to Perek Helek”]

In this vein, I have offered the following suggested interpretation to my classes concerning the midrash of Vashti’s tail. Who has a tail? A horse, a dog, a cat, a cow... in short ,animals have tails. When Vashti was called to appear before Ahasverosh and his guests, she became so enraged that she lost all sense of reason and logical thought and grew a tail. She became as irrational as an animal, and as emotionally caught up in getting back at her attacker as any animal naturally would.

This is my own interpretation of the midrash, and I emphasize to my classes that it is only my understanding, and therefore they are free to accept or reject it, just as you the reader are free to do...

This is the

---

Search for more information about [topic] at 4torah.com.

Straw and salt, continued

..he would ask him: "Father, how are salt and hay tithed?" [Though, he actually knew that there is no requirement that these items be tithed.] His father would thereby think that he meticulously observed the mitzvos."

Many readers of Rashi use the story of the salt and straw to suggest that Esav was a pious fraud. Like the men who wear large shtreimals, but cheat on their taxes and skip davening, Esav, in their conception, was a master of deception, who used sincere-sounding questions to deceive his father. Indeed, Rash picks us on this idea by comparing Esav to a pig, a non-kosher animal that extends its forelegs as if to show off how kosher it is, fooling all who allow themselves to be deceived.

Midrash is not a monolith, and the midrash's view of Esav, especially, is complicated, and full of competing and mutually exclusive ideas. Though it is true that some of our Rabbis did think of Esav as a pious fraud, I will argue that the author of the salt and straw story decidedly did not.

First, let us recognize that midrash isn't history. It isn't telling us that such a conversation actually took place. If you went back in time, you would not find Esav and Yizchack discussing tithes. Rather, this story was created by the author of the midrash for the purpose of conveying an idea.

To understand the author's purpose we must begin with the blessings Yaakov received when he was dressed as Esav. They relate entirely and exclusively to the physical world: tal hashamayim ushmanei haaretz; the dew from the sky and the fat of the earth. Later, at the end of the story, when Yaakov leaves for Aram and is no longer disguised, his father blesses him again, this time saying: ve’yiten lecha es birkas Avraham; he passes Avraham’s spiritual legacy on to Yaakov.

It would seem from this that Yitzchak's intention was to let Yaakov stay in his tent and live a life of contemplation and study; while, Esav, the man of the field, contended with the world and provided for his religious brother. If, as most of our Rabbis say, Yitzchak was planning for the future of the Jewish nation when he blessed his sons, perhaps he was also setting up a sort of Holy Roman Empire (forgive the ahistorical reference) with Yaakov, as Pope, in charge of the nation's spiritual life, and Esav, as Emperor, responsible for feeding and protecting and otherwise sustaining the religious center.

Esav, having grown up in his father's tent, and eaten at his father's table, was aware of this plan, we can assume. The salt and straw midrash tells us that its author thought Esav was unhappy with this plan.

In the ancient world, salt and straw were important preservatives. Salt protected meat from spoiling, and straw was used as a packing material, or as insulation. Yitzchak planned for Esav to be Yaakov's protector, to serve as his straw and salt. The Midrash says Esav asked "How are straw and salt tithed (or "fixed" in the language of the original midrash) Conceptually, this is like asking "How are straw and salt brought into the relam of holiness?" By putting such a question in Esav's mouth, the author of the midrash is letting us know that, in his view, Esav wants something more. He doesn't want to spend his life merely sustaining Yaakov; instead, he wants a holy purpose, too.

I'll leave it to others to explain why, in the fullness of time, this more-positive image of Esav was lost. My guess it has to do with the fact that Esav was, at the turn of the millenium, linked with Rome. Before that association was made, I suppose, more positive opinions of Esav could be entertained. Not so once the Rabbis had paid themselves the compliment of associating the super-power of the day with their own great ancestor's twin brother. From then on Esav was evil, unmitigated, and unredeemable. The salt and straw midrash gives us a glimmer of another point of view.

Esav served his father roast dog?

---

Received as a comment:

For the "suggestion box": more Parasha, more Midrash. This leftist-rightist showdown is getting repetitive.

And these weeks, what a controversial discussion can come out! Does Esav have a legitimate complaint against Yaakov, is trying to kill him the right way to deal with it, (for the Open Orthodox: did these guys exist at all, and if not, what's the story about), all the fascinating midrashim on these stories (did Esav really serve his father roast dog? Ewwww...

Um, Roast Dog? Who can elaborate?

Further reading...

DOVBEAR: Pasha Notes: Toldos 2009

dovbear.blogspot.com/2009/11/pasha-notes-toldos-2009.html

Nov 20, 2009 - Pasha Notes: Toldos 2009. by DovBear at 9:00 AM. What everyone should know. Our midrashim lament Jacob's theft of the brochot, and ..

DOVBEAR: Sforno and the mythical schoolhouse of Shem ...

dovbear.blogspot.com/.../sforno-and-mythical-schoolhouse-of-shem.htm...

Nov 23, 2011 - Sforno's interpretation Jacob had two different tents. One was his shepherd tent, where he lived while he was with the flocks; the other was a ...

DOVBEAR: The Esav Enigma

dovbear.blogspot.com/2007/11/esav-enigma.html

Nov 28, 2007 - Elsewhere, my friend Chaim is attempting to tell us that Esav was the epitomy of evil, and he's using midrashic matrial to defend his point.

DOVBEAR: Esav and Rome

dovbear.blogspot.com/2009/07/esav-and-rome.html

Jul 30, 2009 - A few years back, Bray, some others, and I, argued for months across multiple posts and comments about Esav and Rome. I don't remember ...

DOVBEAR: Esav and the Salt and Straw: What the midrash ...

dovbear.blogspot.com/2010/.../esav-and-salt-and-straw-what-midrash.ht...

Nov 5, 2010 - When school teachers wish to prove that Esav was a dishonest sneak, they usually reference the famous Rashi (based on an older midrash) ...

DOVBEAR: In which I provide additional evidence that Esav ...

dovbear.blogspot.com/2008/.../in-which-i-provide-additional-evidence.h...

Nov 3, 2008 - Long time readers know, that its my belief that Esau, first son of Issac, was the victim of a rabininc smear job. [In previous posts I have argued ...

DOVBEAR: Parsha Vocabulary

dovbear.blogspot.com/2007/11/parsha-vocabulary.html

Nov 13, 2007 - Analysis of Ya'akov's deal with Esav (lentils for birthright) has to include consideration of Esav's physical state at the time of the deal.

DOVBEAR: Misunderstanding the Midrash

dovbear.blogspot.com/2006/11/misunderstanding-midrash.html

Nov 26, 2006 - Gen 25:28 reads: "And Issac loved Esav because of the game in his mouth." (tzayid b'fiv) This is a hebrew idiom, which suggests Esav as either a kind of lion bringing home food in his mouth, or as a mother bird dropping worms into her chick's gapping beak. In either case, it's a material and, therefore,  .

DOVBEAR: Why was Isaac blind?

dovbear.blogspot.com/2007/11/why-was-isaac-blind.html

Nov 15, 2007 - The answer to this question is a wonderful illustration of Rashi's way with midrashim, and also an indictment of how our children are taught in the typical Yeshiva. ... Explaining this midrash is beyond the scope of this post (also, ...We're told Issac was blind immediately before the blessing story begins. Why?

DOVBEAR: IN WHICH I EXPLAIN A MIDRASH (The ...

dovbear.blogspot.com/.../in-which-i-explain-midrash-blindness-of.html

Nov 1, 2013 - Five reasons are given for Isaac's blindness. Perhaps the best known one is cited by Rashi on Gen 27:1 "Another explanation: When Isaac was ..

Search for more information about ### at4torah.com

Why did Kayin kill Hevel? (Shumel Goldin gets it wrong)

My encounter with Shmuel Goldin's "Unlocking the Torah Text" this weekend nearly gave me a stroke. And all I covered was his section on parsha Bereshis. 

There were two terrible passages. We'll deal with one now, and get to the other later. 

In brief, I hold there are two incorrect theories of midrash. I call them the "moron approach" and the "skeptical approach." The moron approach, beloved by idiots who think their stupidity proves their piousness, hold that our sages were merely receiving vessels who did nothing but repeat whatever they heard from their own rebbes. They say the midrashim, in their entirety, go back to Sinai, in one long game of telephone, with not one of the Sages ever making use of his own intelligence or creative powers to add or subtract from the original teaching. 

This, thankfully, is not Goldin's approach.

Instead, Goldin embraces the skeptical approach telling us that midrashim are not really interpretations of verses. Instead, they are something the Sages used to encode and transmit Deep Ideas. Here's how he puts it

Midrashim are vehicles through which the Rabbis.. transmit significant messages and lessons. As such, they are not necessarily meant... to explain the factual meaning of a Torah passage.

The Goldin passage I quote above is actually a (unattributed) paraphrase of something that the Ramchal says in Maamar al Haagadot. And let me make this clear: The Ramchal's approach is a sound way of dealing with problematic midrashim. Trouble is, too many people use this approach to deal with midrashim that are not problematic at all. And this is precisely what Goldin does.

The Midrash he attempts, in this example,  to reveal as a vehicle for transmitting secret lessons is found in Berashis Raba, Berashis 23:16 where various rabbis are quoted discussing competing reasons for Kayin's attack on Hevel. 

In summary:

(1) The brothers divided up the world, with one taking the land, and the other taking the animals. When Kayin saw Hevel standing on "his" land he objected.

(2) The brothers divided up the land and the animals even-steven but both wanted the land where the future Bes Hamikdash would stand. So they fought

(3) The brothers both wanted Chava Rishona, and fought over her. (Chava Rishona is how the Midrash solves the problem of Eve's two creation stories. The first Chava (the one created alongside Adam in Genesis 1:27) was rejected, and replaced by the Chava created from Adam's rib in 2:21 leading Adam to declare in 2:23 "Zos Hapaam / This time [I am happy with the Chava]!")

(4) Hevel had two twin sisters while Kayin had only one. They fought over Hevel's extra sister (the existence of the twins are indicated by the superfluous word "es" in 4:1 and 4:2 where Kayin's birth announcement is accompanied with only one "es", thus one twin, while Hevel's birth announcement has two appearances of "es" which to the Rabbis suggested two twins.

According to Goldin, none of this should be construed at an attempt to interpret and explain the Kayin and Hevel story. Instead the Sages are "expressing global observations" regarding the real reasons why men go to war, namely territory, religion and women.

And then he makes it abundantly clear that he hasn't even taken the elementary first step of consulting the midrash in question, writing:

Fundamentally, the Rabbis make the following statement in this Midrash: We were not present when Kayin killed Hevel. Nor can we glean any information directly from the biblical text concerning the source of their dispute."

Only, even the briefest glance at the text of the Midrash shows this is not true! The Rabbis are not making a statement in unison about Global Facts, nor are they sharing Big Ideas. Rather they are arguing about nothing more than the plain meaning of the verse. 

Each of the four suggested reasons for the fight are based on something specific and anomalous in the text, as the Midrash itself tells us, namely the seemingly extra detail about where the fight occurred. 

The verse says: "While they were in the field, Cain attacked his brother Abel and killed him."

Why mention the field?

(1) Because Kayin and Hevel split the world, with one (the farmer) taking the land, and the other (the sheep herder) taking the animals. In the field, Kayin objected to his brother standing on land, which he owned, so they fought.

(2) The word "field" is often a keyword for the Bes Hamikdash  (eg Micha 3:12) The brothers successfully divided up the entire world, but when they got to the field, ie, the Bes Hamikdash they fought

(3 and 4) Field is also a keyword for women. Both are, um,  plowed (Not my pun! Its in chazal!) and also because of Deuteronomy 22:25 where it says: "If a man finds a girl in the field." So when the brothers reached the field, ie the woman, they fought.

None of this, by the way,  is a DovBear interpretation. All of it is right there in the plain text of the midrash - which Goldin would have encountered had he checked the midrash before embarking on his unnecessary attempt to "decode" it.

---

 Search for more information about ### at4torah.com

How did I win any arguments before Google?

Re: The midrash about the non-singing angels and whether or not its author was attempting to humanize the dead Egyptians.

Paraphrased from the Facebook.

Her:  We're allowed to sing! Only the angels were banned from celebrating! Not us!

Me: Yes, and I agree with you that the midrash, as we have it in BT Megillah, is not telling us anything about the humanity of the Egyptians. The lesson, as recorded by its purported author, is simply that God "does not rejoice at the downfall of the wicked."

Her: But bear in mind, God told the *angels* not to sing praises. Not us. We *do* sing praises when those who have oppressed us fall.

Another guy: I have to ask, do you really believe-that there is no lesson for and about human beings in the midrash? About how we ought to emulate God in tempering our joy at the downfall of the wicked? That we ought to be careful to rejoice with total abandon at their suffering, perhaps especially because we ought not to condemn them all equally--the complicit with the instigators, the redeemable with the wholly irredeemable?

Her: Yes, I really do believe that... There's a verse in Proverbs that says "do not rejoice at the fall of your enemy." This is discussed in the Talmud, where it is specified that this means a Jewish enemy or opponent. In Tractate Megillah, this is even illustrated by an aggadeta about Haman and Mordechai where Mordechai uses Haman as a step stool to mount his horse, and Haman says, "Doesn't your Bible say not to rejoice at the downfall of an enemy?" whereupon Mordechai points out that this doesn't refer to non-Jewish enemies.

Me: We can find lessons in anything. I like the fact that some see humanism in the midrash, as much as I dislike the stridency with which others deny it. The humanistic lesson is unmistakably there (though I am not certain the author of the midrash saw it or wanted you to see it.)

Her: If I'm a little strident about it, it's because I'm so godawful tired of hearing people twist the Torah into a touchy-feely liberal parody of itself.

************Interpolation

I have to admit: I thought she had a point. See, I do agree that this midrash isn't about the humanity of the Egyptians. (though I, hasten to add, I don't find anything inauthentic about the liberal interpretation of the interpretation. Everything worth keeping gets reinterpreted by its heirs as they filter it through their own perspectives and experiences.) Then I remembered one of the neat things about biblical exegesis: If it sounds reasonable, you can probably find a bold-faced name who said it first. So I went to Google, and hit pay dirt on the first page of results.

************ End Interpolation

Me: Was the Bes Yosef "twisting the Torah into touchy-feely liberal parody of itself" on OC 490:4 where he writes

שבלי הלקט (סי’ קעד סט:) כתב בשם מדרש הרנינו פרשת סוכה שהטעם שאין
גומרין ההלל כל ימי הפסח הוא לפי שנטבעו המצריים וכתיב (משלי כד יז)
בנפול אויבך אל תשמח.

And in the Shibolei haLeqet it is written in the name of the Midrash Harninu that the reason why we do not finish Hallel on all the days of Pesach [only on the first] is because the Egyptians drowned. As it says “do not rejoice at the fall of your enemy ” (Proverbs24:17).

So, the verse you insisted could only refer to JEWISH enemies, is in fact used by the Bes Yosef to explain why we don't finish Hallel on the seventh day of Pesach. He seems to think the midrash contains a lesson about the humanity of the Egyptians and how we lose some of our own humanity when we fail to recognize theirs [For the record, I still think he's reading in] So let me leave you with my opening questions. Is the Bes Yosef  "twisting the Torah into touchy-feely liberal parody of itself?" Please answer.

No answer yet.

Search for more information about GOOGLE at 4torah.com

Let's Get Textual (1)

I promised Chaim some examples of Rashi playing a little fast and loose with midrashim. Here's the first of many.

Rashi Chooses Among Midrashim

Gen 27:1
ויהי כי זקן יצחק ותכהין עיניו מראת ויקרא את עשו בנו הגדל ויאמר אליו בני ויאמר אליו הנני
And it came to pass, when Yitzchak was old, and his eyes grew too bleary to see he, and he called Esau his eldest son, and said to him, My son: and he said: Here am I
The verse introduces Yitzchaks blindness. The midrash gives five reasons for it, at least two of which are mutually exclusive:
(a) angles cried in his eyes, when he was bound on the alter
(b) To spare him from having to look at evil Esav (megilla 28a)
(c) Avimelech cursed Sarah (Gen 20:16) and his curse was fulfilled through Yitzchak
(d) His eyes were irritated by the smoke from sacrifices prepared by Esau's wives
(e) To give Yaakov the opportunity to take the blessings

On the verse, Rashi chooses two (d) and (e). [*] Does this mean that (d) and (e) are true and the others are not? For what reason did Rashi accept two and reject three pieces of Rabininc wisdom?

The answer to both questions can be found in the comment considered Rashi's mission statement (Gen 3:8): There are many Aggadaic expositions which our Sages have already organized in their proper order in Bereishis Rabbah and in other Midrashim. I have come only to give (1) the plain meaning of Scripture, and (2) the Aggadah which serves to restore the words of Scripture to their proper context and correct meaning.

In other words, Rashi's goal is to tell us the plain meaning [pshat] of the text, but when the plain meaning isn't plain, he'll use Aggadah (ie: Midrash) to clarify the text. Are Rashi comments based on Midrash also considered pshat? No. When Rashi cites a midrash his purpose isn't to tell us the pshat but to address irregularities or anomalies in the text, and to restore the verses original meaning, or intention. Therefore, the mere fact that Rashi choses or rejects a midrash tells us nothing about Rashi's view of its historical truth or validity. He simply is trying to solve textual questions, and he is willing to mine the aggadah for midrashim that can be used for that purpose.

The question Rashi is attempting to answer is Genesis 27:1 is not "Why did Yitzchak go blind?" That question, as noted above, has at least five answers. Rather, he is attempting to explain why the blindness is mentioned here in 27:1 and not earlier or later. The answer is textual, and the midrashim he selects points the way.

In the immediate previous verse we learn about Esau's two skanky wives: When Esau was forty years old he married Judith the daughter of Beeri the Hittite, and Basemath the daughter of Elon the Hittite, and they brought grief to Isaac and Rebekah (Gen 26:34-35) This leads Rashi to Midrash (d) above.

The section introduced by our verse describes how Yitzchak's blindness allowed Yaakov to steal the blessing. This points Rashi to Midrash (e) above.

The other three midrashim are rejected by Rashi not because they are ivalid, but because they don't serve the purpose of his commentary. They can't be used to address a textual issue, or to clarify the words of the Torah.

If you don't agree, try answering this question: Rashi made a conscious and deliberate decision about which midrashim to include in his commentary. What does this tell us about Rashi's relationship to midrashim and text?

Source

[*] Note: Most printed chumashim include midrash (a) Avigdor Bonchek says this is a mistake. The Reggio di Calabria edition, the frist printed edition of Rashi, does not have it.

[More to come]

A solution to the apparent anachronism on BT Sota 11

See also:

• The puzzling drash on BT Sota 11
• How violent was Amram? A drash on BT Sota 12 ff

Last week, the blog discussed the puzzle of R. Hama b. Hanina's drash on BT Sota 11. As you recall, we wanted to know what the Sage meant when he said Pharaoh and his advisers consulted the not-yet-written book of Isaiah. Various bad explanations of this anachronism were offered, explanations that were discussed and debunked on the previous post's thread.

After that discussion died down, our friend Micheal arrived with a very good answer.

See it after the jump.

Rashi and anachronisms

I see via GH (who after two years has finally conceded the truth of my central religious argument) that Divrei Chaim has made a convoluted attempt to explain Rashi on Gen 19:3 [1 and 2] and other anachronisms in the commentary.

Here's the Rashi comment in question [1]:

ויפצר בם מאד ויסרו אליו ויבאו אל ביתו ויעש להם משתה ומצות אפה ויאכלו׃
But he insisted so strongly that they came with him and went into his home. He prepared a feast for them, and baked some flatbreads, and they ate.
Rashi: And baked some flatbreads: It was Passover

Asks Divrei Chaim:

What do we make of Rashi? Rashi seems to be addressing a simple textual question... If you dismiss Rashi as “derash” and not pshat, what does that mean? – did Rashi waste his time composing “fictional” answers to explain troublesome details in the text? Or to put it another way, if Rashi knew it was irrational or improbable for Lot to have really kept Pesach and eaten matzah, then hasn’t Rashi failed to answer the textual question he posed?"

The problem, I think, is that DC has a post-enlightenment way of looking at history, and can't quite wrap his head around the fact that Rashi -for all his brilliance- did not. We're modern. Anachronisms bother us. Rashi was from a different time and place, a foreign country in LP Barthartley's famous phrase. Anachronisms didn't bother him (His commentary, and the Midrash upon which most of it is based, are chock full of them.) Nor did they bother the non-Jewish geniuses of his time (See Anselm of Canterbury who imagined God as the fuedal lord of the word, and interpreted the Jesus story from that perspective.) We worry about the little details of history. We want to know exactly what Lot served the visiting angels. Rashi was different. As a man of the 13th century, he just didn't care. He was a critic, concerned about the words on the page [2], and a halachist, concerned about Jewish law. He was not a historian in any sense, but certainly not a historian in the modern sense.

NB
1 - I could argue that Rashi's view of 19:3 isn't necessarily anachronistic. Suppose we were to corner Rashi and ask him what happened in Sodom on the night before the destruction. We could ask him three different questions: (1) Were matzot really served?; (2) Was it really Pesach?; and (3) Did Lot bake matzot because he somehow knew that in the far off future his uncle's descendants would be commanded to eat them in memory of an event that was yet to occur? I'm certain Rashi would say "yes" to the first two questions, but if he were to answer "no" to the third, his comment isn't an anachronism.

2- In particular, Rashi wants to know why the word "feast" is used to describe a meal that consisted of the poor man's bread. His answer, despite what you may have heard about Rashi, didn't arrive via ruach haKodesh. Its right from Berashis Rabba. (Not having seen this particular midrash in many years, I can't tell you what its author was attempting to address, but I'd bet serious money that it was not written to tell us the facts of history[3]. Midrashim rarely attempt to tell us what happened. They almost always serve to give us some lesson or explanation. Because Rashi often re purposes midrashim, the fact that Rashi uses this one to explain why the feast Lot prepared was so pathetic is not proof that the midrash was written for that reason, too.)

3 - This, incidentally, is the other problem with the DC approach. Along with construing Rashi as a historian, he construes midrash as history. True, the midrash says that the angles visited Lot on Passover. However, it doesn't follow from this that it actually was Passover or even that the author of the Midrash believed it himself. The Ramchal says that moral and metaphysical lessons are hidden in midrashim. Perhaps the author of this particular midrash said that the visit occured on Passover for the sake of some moral lesson he wished to convey[4].

4 - Or perhaps he really thought it was Passover. We have no way of knowing.

[*] Its also possible that the words ומצות אפה were added by a later scribe/editor/redactor who wanted to make an editorial point about the salvation of Lot and connect it to the later salvation of the Jewish people. This is the sort of thing Midrash does all the time, so it doesn't seem far fetched that an scribe/editor/redactor might try it, too. But that's another post

Rabbinics 101

Here are some basics for the readers who have astounded me with their ignorance over the last few days.

Torah She b'al peh or Oral Law.

TSBP consists of 7 components [List taken from Wikipedia because time]

1. Halakha LeMoshe MiSina: Ancient halakot which have no connection whatever with Scripture and can not be connected with it, thus deriving their authority only from the tradition which ascribes them to Moses on Sinai.
2. Dibre Ḳabbalah" (Words of Tradition): Halakot found in the prophetic books. Some of these originated at the time of the Prophets; but others are much older, perhaps having been transmitted orally, and committed to writing by the Prophets. 
3. Dibre Soferim" (Words of the Scribes). Interpretations and regulations defining many written laws, as well as new halakhot, which the first scribes, beginning with the time of Ezra, formulated. 
4. Midrash Halacha Interpretations and regulations covering the written law, as well as new halakhot, which the Tannaim deduced from Scripture by means of hermeneutic rules or by logical conclusions. There are differences of opinion among the scholars in regard to most of these explanations and definitions; but they are of equal weight with the written law, and are called also"Debar Torah" (Regulation of the Torah).
5. Takanot: Customs and observances which were introduced at various times by different scholars. (like Purim)
6. Gizerot: Statutes and decisions decreed by the Sanhedrin or court, and generally accepted, thus becoming laws which could be abrogated only by another court superior to the first one in numbers and scholarship. (like most of our shabbos laws)
7. Hilkot Medinah: Statutes and regulations for which the scholars had no tradition or allusion in Scripture, but which they accepted as standards after deriving them from the customs and laws of the country in which they were living. 

Everyone agrees that (1) is part of the original revelation on Sinai.
Everyone agrees that (3) (5), (6) and (7) were not part of the original revelation.
Everyone agrees that some of (2) goes back to Sinai and some of it doesn't.

The fun revolves around (4) Some of our great Rabbis thought that all of (4) goes back to Sinai. Others thought all of the rules of interpretation (which, oddly enough, are Greek in style and approach) go back to Sinai. Others thought none of it could be traced to Sinai and that all of it was produced by Chazal. We won't settle that dispute here and now, just be aware it exists.

Midrash Aggada and Aggada

Aggada are the non-legal parts of the Talmud and compositions of Chazal that consist of stories, ancient science, magical remedies, theological doctrines, and the like. Midrash aggada are the non-legal parts of the Talmud and compositions of Chazal that are explicitly based on verses. Neither are part of the Oral Law because, by definition, neither have anything to do with law.

The great Rabbis of long ago seemed to agree that Aggada was the creation of the Sages. There are passages in the Talmud which suggest this (here, too) and a host of outright statements made by Rishonim and Achronim. [many more on request.]

In fact, the idea that midrash aggada and aggada can be traced to Sinai appears to be rather late; certainly Rashbam, Ibn Ezra, Ohr Hachaim among  others had absolutely no qualms about rejecting midrash aggada and aggada when they thought the Sages were wrong. (Indeed in four places Ohr Hachaim emphasizes that such rejections of Chazal are perfectly ok when the subjest is non-legal)

Permission to Disbelieve

Jews who wish to identify as Orthodox are required to accept and follow normative Orthodox halacha; however Orthodox Jews are not required to believe that the Talmud or that TSBP is a source of revealed truth capable of providing grounds for belief. As cited in the previous passage, our Rishonim and Achronim have already given us permission to reject the theological and scientific ideas presented in midrash and midrash halacha whenever those beliefs contradict out intellects. Also, in addition to the many quotes I have already provided, we have Samson Rephael Hirsh's famous denial of the infallibility of the Sages and the Talmud when they discuss non-legal matters.

   Search for more information about ### at4torah.com