These include:
- Abraham smashing his father's (Terah) idols before being thrown into the oven by Nimrod;
- Nachshon ben Aminadav bravely marching into the Sea of Reeds even before it split for the Israelites
- God lifting the mountain above the heads of the Israelites before the giving of the Torah
So what exactly is midrash, anyway? And where do these stories come from?
Are the rabbis just making things up? Are they trying to teach a lesson by way of a story? Is it an outlet for them to express their own creativity? Are these versions of stories as they wish had been told in the Torah?
Midrash never just appears out of nowhere.
The sages were incredibly careful to read TaNaKh with the strongest of microscopes - paying utmost attention to every little detail in the text. Where a midrashic story might seem strange, random, or bizarre to us, it might very well be deeply, well thought-out response to a seemingly small and insignificant detail that the Torah gave us elsewhere.
As for what exactly a midrash is a response to; well, the sages oftentimes left that to us to find. But by reading midrash and comparing it with the verses to which it is connected, one can start to identify all, or at least some of the different seams between the many different parts that went into the author's crafting of the finished product. While speculative, and oftentimes, difficult, this can be an incredibly rewarding endeavor, changing the way we ultimately see the passages even as they occur in the TaNaKh itself.
So let's give it a go.
Our midrash of discussion will be from Ruth Rabbah, probably compiled around 500 CE:
רַבִּי בֵּיבַי בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי רְאוּבֵן אָמַר, רוּת וְעָרְפָּה בְּנוֹתָיו שֶׁל עֶגְלוֹן הָיוּ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שופטים ג, יט): דְּבַר סֵתֶר לִי אֵלֶיךָ הַמֶּלֶךְ וַיֹּאמֶר הָס וגו', וּכְתִיב (שופטים ג, כ): וְאֵהוּד בָּא אֵלָיו וגו' וַיֹּאמֶר אֵהוּד דְּבַר אֱלֹהִים לִי אֵלֶיךָ וַיָּקָם מֵעַל הַכִּסֵּא, אָמַר לוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא אַתָּה עָמַדְתָּ מִכִּסְאֲךָ לִכְבוֹדִי, חַיֶּיךָ הֲרֵינִי מַעֲמִיד מִמְךָ בֵּן יוֹשֵׁב עַל כִּסֵּא ה'.
Rabbi Beivai in the name of Rabbi Reuben said:
"Ruth and Orpah were the daughters of Eglon, as it is said: "I have a secret message for you.”
The king thereupon commanded, “Silence!” (Judges 3:19)".
And it is written: "and when Ehud approached him...Ehud said, “I have a message for you from God”; whereupon he rose from his seat. (Judges 3:20)", and he said to him: "The Holy One, blessed be He said: "You stood from your throne for my glory, as you live I will cause to rise from you a son sitting on the throne of YHWH!"
- Claim: Ruth and Orpah were daughters of King Elgon.
- Prooftexts:
- "I have a secret message for you! The King thereupon commanded, "Silence!"
- When Ehud approached him... Ehud said, "I have a message for you from God!" Whereupon he rose from his seat.
According to the book of Judges (chapter 3), Eglon was a mighty Moabite King, who forged an alliance with the kingdoms of Ammon and Amalek. This would be around 1,200 years BCE.
Their goal? Oppress the Israelites! They were successful in this for nearly two decades!
If Ruth comes from King Eglon, then so does one of our most beloved heroes - David, the shepherd-poet-musician-king; The slayer of Goliath; The one who finally captured Jerusalem and established it as our eternal capital; The founder of our royal lineage and great-ancestor of the Messiah; Whom our children sing about in their Hebrew schools and summer camps;
He comes from King Eglon!? From Moabite royalty?
Ever since King Balak hired Bilaam to curse the Israelites during their desert wanderings, the Israelites and Moabites were at each others throats! (See Numbers 22).
If the Torah does not tell us that King David came from Moabite royalty - why would the Rabbis say such a thing!???
(יח) וַֽיְהִי֙ כַּאֲשֶׁ֣ר כִּלָּ֔ה לְהַקְרִ֖יב אֶת־הַמִּנְחָ֑ה וַיְשַׁלַּח֙ אֶת־הָעָ֔ם נֹשְׂאֵ֖י הַמִּנְחָֽה׃ (יט) וְה֣וּא שָׁ֗ב מִן־הַפְּסִילִים֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר אֶת־הַגִּלְגָּ֔ל וַיֹּ֕אמֶר דְּבַר־סֵ֥תֶר לִ֛י אֵלֶ֖יךָ הַמֶּ֑לֶךְ וַיֹּ֣אמֶר הָ֔ס וַיֵּֽצְאוּ֙ מֵֽעָלָ֔יו כָּל־הָעֹמְדִ֖ים עָלָֽיו׃ (כ) וְאֵה֣וּד ׀ בָּ֣א אֵלָ֗יו וְהֽוּא־יֹ֠שֵׁב בַּעֲלִיַּ֨ת הַמְּקֵרָ֤ה אֲשֶׁר־לוֹ֙ לְבַדּ֔וֹ וַיֹּ֣אמֶר אֵה֔וּד דְּבַר־אֱלֹהִ֥ים לִ֖י אֵלֶ֑יךָ וַיָּ֖קָם מֵעַ֥ל הַכִּסֵּֽא׃ (כא) וַיִּשְׁלַ֤ח אֵהוּד֙ אֶת־יַ֣ד שְׂמֹאל֔וֹ וַיִּקַּח֙ אֶת־הַחֶ֔רֶב מֵעַ֖ל יֶ֣רֶךְ יְמִינ֑וֹ וַיִּתְקָעֶ֖הָ בְּבִטְנֽוֹ׃
(18) When [Ehud] had finished presenting the tribute, [Eglon] dismissed the people who had conveyed the tribute.
(19) But he himself returned from Pesilim, near Gilgal, and said, “Your Majesty, I have a secret message for you.”
[Eglon] thereupon commanded, “Silence!”
So all those in attendance left his presence;
(20) When Ehud approached him, he was sitting alone in his cool upper chamber.
Ehud said, “I have a message for you from God”;
Whereupon [Eglon] rose from his seat. (21) Reaching with his left hand, Ehud drew the dagger from his right side and drove it into [Eglon’s] belly.
Be silent, all flesh, before YHWH! For He is roused from His holy habitation.
But YHWH in His holy Abode— Be silent before Him all the earth!
Be silent before my Lord YHWH, For the day of YHWH is approaching; For YHWH has prepared a sacrificial feast! Has bidden His guests purify themselves!
Later on in Judges, there is an episode when an Israelite hero gives false information to his Philistine wife. Not once - but twice! You would think that he would have forfeited his opportunity to be believed in the future. But that's not what happens!
Here is how the Torah relates the next fateful exchange between Samson and Delilah:
(16) Finally, after she had nagged him and pressed him constantly, he was wearied to death (17) and he confided everything to her.
He said to her, “No razor has ever touched my head, for I have been a nazirite to God since I was in my mother’s womb. If my hair were cut, my strength would leave me and I should become as weak as an ordinary man.”
(18) Sensing that he had confided everything to her, Delilah sent for the lords of the Philistines, with this message:
“Come up once more, for he has confided everything to me.” And the lords of the Philistines came up and brought the money with them.
And secondly - there is a sense in the text that she even believed him this time around with a conviction that she did not have before - even when Samson didn't have a history of lying! For in neither of the previous cases does the Torah say "Sensing that he had confided everything to her..." Why would this be?
The Abarbanel (Isaac Abarbanel, Lisbon, 15th century) says the following:
ויגד לה את כל לבו. והנה ראתה דלילה שזה היה האמת בלא ספק, אם לפי שראתה שהזכיר שם שמים והיה מנהגו שלא לזכור שם שמים לבטלה כדברי חז"ל
Then he told her all of his heart...
And behold, Delilah saw that this was the truth without any doubt whatsoever, being that he mentioned the name of Heaven - and his custom was never to mention the name of God in vain, in accordance to the statement of the sages.
Before there was King David, there was just David. A boy who would become a shepherd turned courageous soldier, and then a popular, widely admired and loved war-chief.
As oftentimes happens, popularity can evoke jealousy and fear in the reigning power. Sure enough, the then-King Saul felt threatened. And David found himself on the run.
Naturally, David was not only concerned for his own safety, but that of his family as well. But what he does to ensure the protection of his parents is shocking:
(3) David went from there to Mizpeh of Moab, and he said to the king of Moab:
“Let my father and mother come [and stay] with you, until I know what God will do for me!”
(4) So he led them to the king of Moab, and they stayed with him as long as David remained in the stronghold.
Why would a simple shepherd from a Judahite family hold such intimate connections
with the king of Moab?
...
That the king of Moab agrees to protect David's family is even more puzzling when we
consider that Moab is described as a major enemy of the tribes of Israel in preceding parts of the Tanach.
The king of Moab's behavior would make more sense, however, if we assume that this account was part of a David tradition, which assumed David's family ties to the Moabites.
In their midrash on Ruth, the sages pick up on this problem and explain that David's great-grandmother Ruth was the Daughter of Eglon king of Moab, who was himself, according to the Sages, the grandson of Balak. (!!!)
--https://www.thetorah.com/article/book-of-ruth-recasting-davids-foreign-origins
Recall that the book of Genesis recounts that Abraham, in addition to having his wife Sarah, also had an Egyptian maidservant named Hagar - with whom he eventually has Yishmael. We are not given any more information from the Torah about Hagar's background.
But consider this passage of midrash from Genesis Rabbah:
אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחָאי
הָגָר בִּתּוֹ שֶׁל פַּרְעֹה הָיְתָה, וְכֵיוָן שֶׁרָאָה פַּרְעֹה מַעֲשִׂים שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ לְשָׂרָה בְּבֵיתוֹ, נָטַל בִּתּוֹ וּנְתָנָהּ לוֹ, אָמַר מוּטָב שֶׁתְּהֵא בִּתִּי שִׁפְחָה בְּבַיִת זֶה וְלֹא גְבִירָה בְּבַיִת אַחֵר,
הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב: וְלָהּ שִׁפְחָה מִצְרִית וּשְׁמָהּ הָגָר, הָא אַגְרִיךְ.
אַף אֲבִימֶלֶךְ כֵּיוָן שֶׁרָאָה נִסִּים שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ לְשָׂרָה בְּבֵיתוֹ נָטַל בִּתּוֹ וּנְתָנָהּ לוֹ, אָמַר מוּטָב שֶׁתְּהֵא בִּתִּי שִׁפְחָה בַּבַּיִת הַזֶּה וְלֹא גְבִירָה בְּבַיִת אַחֶרֶת, הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב (תהלים מה, י): בְּנוֹת מְלָכִים בִּיקְרוֹתֶיךָ נִצְּבָה שֵׁגָל לִימִינְךָ בְּכֶתֶם אוֹפִיר.
Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai said:
"Hagar was the daughter of Pharaoh. When Pharaoh saw all of the deeds that were done for Sarah in his house, he took his daughter and gave her to Abraham, saying: Better for my daughter to be a maidservant in his house than a queen in another's!"
That is the meaning of Scripture; (Genesis 16:1) And she [Sarah] had an Egyptian maidservant, and her name was Hagar. This is your reward!
So too, Avimelech. When he saw the miracles that were done for Sarah in his home, he took his daughter and gave her to him, saying; Better that my daughter should be a maidservant in his house than a queen in another's.
That is the meaning of Scripture; Princesses are your favorite! The consort stands at your right hand, decked in the gold of Ophir! (psalms 45:10)
We began with a midrash which makes a very bold claim - without bringing any evidence. The Book of Ruth tells us that David is Ruth's descendant. The midrash takes this a major step further and traces this ancestry back to the Moabite Kings.
But with everything above, here are some observations and traditions that the author of the midrash perhaps was using as source material.
- 1. The relatively unusual choice of the word הס! - silence! Which in most other places is associated with some kind of revelation from God. Therefore a divine revelation is expected here, too! (This is similar to to a technique of Rabbinic interpretation called a gezeira shava, which is used in deriving Torah-law. If the same word is used in two different contexts, then laws given in one context can be deduced to apply in another, as well.)
- 2. Ehud's invoking of Elohim, stating that he is bringing the word of God to Eglon. As the Abarbanel points out in the context of Samson - This move carries with it tremendous gravity. Perhaps the midrash was uncomfortable with the idea that an Israelite chieftain, chosen to be one of our saviours, would brazenly make such a claim as to be bearing the word of God - only for it to be completely false! (Even with the best of intentions.)
- 3. David's unusual relationship with the royal Moabite family as seen in the book of Samuel. Dr. Avrami even suggests that our midrash is an attempt to answer those difficult questions!
- 4. We have precedence from another midrash about women of royalty leaving their home, their privilege, and their opportunities, all for the sake of joining their fate with that of Israel. The sages tell us that מעשה אבות סימן לבנים - The deeds of the forefathers foretell what will happen to their children. Perhaps Ruth's leaving to accompany Naomi was seen as a parallel to Hagar's leaving to accompany Abraham.
And finally, given everything above, back to our starting question:
Is this midrash a case of:
- Someone "making something up?"
- Or, can it be said to be a valid means of Biblical interpretation?
- Or, would you categorize this endeavor as something different altogether?
