Defining the Midrash:
Challenges and Controversy
Introduction:
In the study of Judaism, an emphasis on interpretation is found within the term midrash. The exploration of what it means to apply a midrash is a complicated process, in large part due to the use of the term as itself a definition of the interpretation of the Scripture. In attempting to explore and comprehend Scripture, the midrash of a specific interpretation suggests a particular form of ownership, in which the ideas conveyed correspond to a field of thought exclusive to that singular interpretation.
This paper shall seek to explore the midrash, and identify the major difficulties facing those who wish to adequately define this term. This paper shall conclude through identifying the midrash as a form of interpretation and a method through which the reader can approach holy text, thus suggesting that the midrash is a strategy through which the reader can encourage their comprehension of the text.
Controversy and Challenges Over Midrash:
The emergence of controversy over defining the term midrash occurs in the application of the word. Simply put, there are multiple meanings through which the term midrash can be applied, and all of them are accurate (Stern, 1998; 14). Readings on the midrash suggest three common uses of the term in Judaism:
- A midrash is a foundational ideology, in which it is the strategy applied to approaching a concept, passage, or theme within holy text; or
- A midrash is a collected text of teachings which correspond to a single school of thought on a particular element of Judaism; or
- A midrash is an exclusive translation or interpretation common to a selected passage from a holy text.
What is common within these three uses of the term midrash is that there is a heavy emphasis on interpretation and ownership. Kugel (no date) stresses that this occurs from the innermost nature of what the midrash is, where the midrash is a strategy through which agreement can occur over themes, or motifs, within holy passages. The wider motifs found within holy text can, Kugel suggests, generally are assessed through agreement among its audience. Specific motifs, however, are more difficult to assess. Kugel finds motifs can be deconstructed into midrash through careful reading and through identification of the themes found within each, particularly the “exegetical motif” found therein (Kogel, no date, 8). He defines this as the “underlying idea about how to explain a biblical text that becomes the basis, or part of the basis, or a narrative explanation” (Ibid.). He also stresses that most motifs within the analysis of Scripture are traditional interpretations of such, where “it is an ancient interpreter’s hypothesis about what a particular detail in the Bible may be trying to imply” (Ibid.).
Yet while Kugel suggests that the midrash is steeped in traditionalism, the use of the midrash as a mode of interpretation suggests that this term communicates an additional emphasis on ongoing assessment of Scripture and holy texts. Boyarin (no date) finds that those who are engaged in the debate over the midrash labor “under a curious confusion between the process of reading the midrash and the process of producing midrash” (Boyarin, no date, 452). This suggests that there is a gap which exists between the ability to acquire this information and the ability to convey this information to additional readers.
Controversy over the midrash tends to become centralized in this gap, which can be referred to as the communications process (Fraadue, no date, 61). The midrash as text can be seen as Scripture. For argument’s sake, let’s explore this as one would a translation from French into English. The original thought continues to persist in the French version of the text, yet the English translation is embedded with what the translator believed the original author wished to say. And, despite how close the translator works to accurately convey this intent in their translation, it is highly likely that this process will create the same gap between text and interpretation which Boyarin has noted. Boyarin offers as an alternative a “hermeneutic account” of what it means to be midrash, in which “the texts of the Prophets and the Writings were understood as a key to the decoding of difficult verses in the Torah, such that when the two texts are read together the narrative problems of the particular verses are removed” (Ibid, 453). Again, this citation reflects that the gap which appears to persist between the original text and the interpretation of the text occurs through problems over how, why, and to what extent the original meaning of the piece was lost.
Defining the Midrash:
Problems with realizing an effective definition of the term midrash are thus lost in the many uses of the term, as well as the perceptions which its users embed into the term midrash. At its most basic level, it can very easily be argued that the interpretation of the term midrash is complicated merely through the highly subjective nature of everything which this term encompasses. The midrash as text emerges from a school of thought, and thus is the representation of an ancient, historical, or modern interpretation of holy passages. The midrash as ideology stresses the perceptions embedded within following this school of though: This in turn suggests a general conformity of perception when reading passages which agree with one’s personal acceptance of a midrash, but will automatically create conflict when approaching a midrash from a different perspective. These elements, when embedded within the study of what is means to be a midrash, stress the roles of midrash as highly subjective and inherently vulnerable to debate and controversy.
If the term midrash were applies specifically to the schools of thought that are used to interpret these passages, the term would be extremely easy to define. In this sense, midrash would merely imply the ownership of the passage. To return to the earlier example of translating a passage from French into English, a midrash would place a marker or stamp upon the ownership of the holy text, suggesting that the interpretation can be traced back to those who created it. Similarly, if the term midrash were applies specifically to the schools of thought surrounding the Scriptures and the holy texts, this would also imply ownership of a sort.
Yet neither of these uses are adequate, for the application of the term midrash is not only extremely subjective and vulnerable to interpretation, but also engages the perceptions of the readers. There are references to the development of a personal midrash, or outlook, through which the individual can themselves approach the holy texts within their personal lives. In this sense, the term is not merely about ownership of ideas or the modes through which the original interpretations are communicated to the reader, but apply to the personal modes through which the reader acquires the knowledge from the text.
In this sense, there are multiple interpretations of midrash. There are the first three interpretations, as previously clarified, but there is also the new mode of comprehending the text through one’s own perceptions. There is thus one final midrash, which is exclusive to the individual, and suggests that there is a mode through which knowledge is communicated directly to the person. Kugel refers to this as “pulling all this together in a cohesive scenario” (Kugel, no date, 149). There is midrash as the origin of the verse, there is midrash as the interpretation of the verse, there is midrash as the school of thought from which the individual can perceive the verse, and finally there is the midrash through which the individual does finally perceive the verse. Kogel illustrates this situation through exploring the seemingly transparent interpretation of Psalm 81. The application of these multiple midrash creates an environment in which the entire general intent of the piece can be mutilated beyond belief, or adapted for the general benefit and welfare of the reader.
Thus, what is most challenging about defining the midrash is that it does not function in isolation. The multitude of interpretations characterizes not only the individual’s perceptions of the holy text, but also suggest that there is no inherently correct definition of the text itself. This view is in keeping with Judaism, in which it is identified that God requests the reader to bring their own views to their readings of the texts (Stern, 1998, 40). The holy texts and the Scripture are therefore vulnerable to subjective interpretation from internal and external levels.
With all of these factors involved, it is without question that the term midrash is so difficult to clarify. The term not only has a wide range of uses, but is engaged as a clarifying term within text which was never intended to be defined, merely studied. The use of the term midrash thus can be explored in the form of a process or the practice of approaching the holy texts of Judaism, but it can never be fully defined.
Conclusion:
The sum of uses of the term midrash creates a difficult scenario for the student of Judaism and the holy scriptures. It can be concluded that the use of the term midrash is itself subject to interpretation. The numerous levels through which this term is applied characterizes the texts, and creates a clear understanding of how, why, and to what extent they are subject to the vulnerabilities inherent in perception.
Unfortunately, these conditions do not help resolve the issues embedded within the discussion of what a midrash is, nor how these many modes of interpretation fully impact the study of holy texts. Finally -- and this point is of extreme importance for those who engage in the study of midrash – these wide ranges of the use of the term midrash mean that there is no permanent ownership of any given passage from the holy text. There is no legitimacy of ownership within these texts, nor is there anything more conclusive than a general sense of meaning invested therein. Highly subjective, open to all manner of debate and perception, the holy scriptures might be approached and studied through the use of midrash but it can be concluded that nothing is resolved from this process.
These are the conditions that make it all but impossible to conclusively define what a midrash is, or how it is applied, or to what extent it ultimately affects the study of holy texts and Scripture. The number of variables that are invested within this single, seemingly simple term complicate the study of holy texts. However, as the ultimate use of all holy texts is to define and describe the relationship of the individual with God, it is perhaps for the best that this situation is so highly complex and convoluted. In this sense, the individual is forced to communicate with the holy texts through the application of their own midrash, as opposed to having the answers provided to them from definitive outside sources.
Works Cited:
Boyarin, Daniel. “Intertextuality and the Reading of Midrash.” Indiana Studies in Biblical Literature. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. 1990.
Fraade, Steven D. “From Tradition to Commentary: Torah and Its Interpretation in the Midrash Sifrei to Deuteronomy.”
Kugel, James. “Two Introductions to Midrash.”
Stern, David. Midrash and Theory: Ancient Jewish Exegesis and Contemporary Literary Study. Boston: Northwestern University Press. 1998.
