(This article has been printed in the NY Jewish Observer.)
"Rabbi, do I have to believe that Rivka was three when she got married? Do I have to believe in the stories of Livyoson?" So asked a Russian girl in her early twenties, a newcomer to the study of Torah. The use of medrash in adult education is constant and recurring. Many educators, however, are not aware that it can be a problem.
There are many types of medrashim in our literature. Some are called Aggados and are included in the Gemorro. This gives them total authority. Others are found in different books or collections. Some of these are universally accepted, such as Medrash Tanchuma.
Other books, also called "medrashim", are the subject of controversy. Rishonim disagree as to their legitimacy. (E.g. Ibn Ezra, Shemos 2.22, [see Avi Ezer], rejects some which are quoted by Yalkut Shimoni.) Their origin is questionable. Should we quote them? Important educational questions arise even within those Medrashim which are certainly authoritative.
Are we meant to, or, are we allowed to, take all Medrashim at face value? Those of us who have had a Jewish education from childhood may not realise how ingrained Medrashim are in our psyche. We view the stories of TaNaCh so utterly through the eyes of the Medrashim that we often do not know where peshat ends and medrash starts.
Unfortunately, our childhood perception remains with us as we grow up and we do not think of the narratives of TaNaCh in any other form. Those of us who have benefited from an advanced Yeshiva or Sem. education have heard Medrashim explained at deeper levels. Nevertheless, that does not always stop us from quoting the Medrash "kipshuto" when learning chumash with an adult beginner, as if the beginner were a six year old cheder yingel.
Why do we consider this a problem? Is it not the right thing to do, to learn Torah through the eyes of the Gedolim?
Hearken to the words of the RaMBaM!
There are three different types of people when it comes to understanding the Medrashim and Aggados.
The majority of people I have met or whose books I have read or heard about, take the words of chazal at face value and do not attempt to explain them at all. In their eyes the unreasonable and impossible becomes an article of faith.
Their reason for taking this line is simply due to ignorance. They just do not realise what they are doing. Unfortunately they have not come across anyone who could explain matters to them. They honestly think that their simple and superficial understanding of the Medrashim reflects the intention of the authors. This simple understanding may contain some impossibilities. Presenting these simplistic ideas to a public or to individuals would cause great astonishment. They would produce a reaction of "...how on earth can anyone say such things and honestly believe them to be true, and find them appealing?" Such people are extremely unfortunate. I pity their foolishness. They think they are elevating the status of chazal whereas in fact they are degrading it to the lowest level ... whilst remaining blissfully ignorant of what they are doing. By G-d, they destroy the honour of the Torah and blacken its reputation. In fact they convert the Torah into the very opposite of what HaShem intended it to be!
Look at the Torah. How does HaShem describe it?
"... it is your knowledge and wisdom in the eyes of the nations who, when they hear of these statutes, will say, this great nation is surely a wise and understanding people." (Devarim 4 6)
The people we are referring to, explain the words of chazal in such a way that, if the nations were to hear them, they would say "... this petty nation is surely a foolish and worthless people."
A lot of this is achieved by those who try to teach what they themselves do not understand. If only they were to keep silent... it would be the wisest thing they could do. Alternatively, they should state clearly that they do not understand what chazal meant. However, because they think they understand, they allow themselves to relate their ideas to others as they understand them, rather than telling them what chazal actually meant. They quote the aggados such as those in the last chapter of Sanhedrin and other such sources verbatim and in stark simplicity.
The second group is also very large and is comprised of those who see the words of chazal in their simplicity, believe them to be as they are, and scoff and mock them. They then consider themselves wiser and more knowledgeable than chazal. The sages are to them, fools and idiots, lacking in all wisdom and science. Most of these are people who are educated in secular sciences and consider themselves thinking people. They are worse than the first group.
The third group is so small, it can hardly be called a group. These are the ones who really understand how great chazal were and that their words reveal great and deep truths. They know what is the reasonable and possible and what is the unreasonable and impossible. They know that chazal did not speak empty words, but words with a depth and a meaning which go beyond the superficial. Anything impossible said by chazal is simply metaphor. When speaking of lofty ideas, chazal couched them in allegorical terms. This is the style of of the wise. Shlomo HaMelech opens Mishlei with the statement "...to understand parables and allegories...the words of the wise and their 'chiddos' ". Those who understand the Hebrew language know that when he refers to "chiddos" he is referring to phrases in which the true meaning is the deep one and not the superficial one. When the very wise speak of great and lofty principles they only speak about them in allegorical form. We should not, therefore, be surprised to see that chazal also couched their teachings of deep ideas in allegories and clothed them in common language. Shlomo HaMelech himself wrote the whole of Shir HaShirim, Mishlei and parts of Koheles in such a style. Why, then, should it surprise us if we have to seek deep explanations in the words of chazal, deny their superficial meaning, and make their words fit in with that which is sensible and true? They themselves often explained many of the words of TaNaCh as being allegorical, denying their superficial meaning in favour of the deeper meaning. These words of the RaMBaM are quoted in a loosely translated, adapted form, from his introduction to "Chelek", the last chapter of Sanhedrin.
He is quite adamant. Many Medrashim were never meant to be taken at face value. Not only were they not meant to be taken at face value, It is wrong and false to take them at face value.
Rabbi Yehudah HeChossid, in Sefer Chassidim (297), has also got something to say about teaching Aggada and Medrash.
He quotes the Yerushalmi, Pesochim 5.3., (there are different girsa'os of this Yerushalmi). Rebbi said he had a tradition from his forefathers not to teach Aggada to people who have ... little Torah ... and not to tell surprising, astonishing Aggados to ... (those) who might say "there is nothing in it, and since there is nothing in this branch of Torah there is nothing in other branches of Torah" ... and also to the ignorant and to all those who scoff at the Aggados.
Coming back to our situation ... will our adult, western educated talmid/ah who is (a) trained in science, (b) influenced by pseudo-science, and (c) swimming in a liberal sea of unbridled kefira, be attracted by our presentation of medrash or aggada, or repulsed by it?
Teaching an adult in a kiruv situation is completely different to teaching a frum child in cheder. Unless we realise this we could be guilty of pushing people away from Yiddishkeit and creating the impression that religious Jews, chalila, believe in nonsense, fairy tales and ancient "legends". (Legends, that's the key word! Legends!)
We also have to be aware of the existence of alternative, even conflicting opinions within the words of chazal. Where there is conflicting opinion in medrash and aggada, one is not bound to decide in favour of the one opinion over another. Since no halochoh is at stake, all opinions can retain equal status.
Our problem is compounded by our having Rashi's choice of Medrash, as quoted in his commentary on the Torah, fixed in our mind and interwoven with the peshat. Often Rashi differentiates between "peshuto" and "medrasho". Just as often he just quotes the Medrash or explains according to the Medrash without identifying his source. In any case, what happens to the "other opinions" in that same Medrash which Rashi did not quote? Very often we are not even aware of their existence. Should we quote to the adult student the first opinion within the Medrash which comes to mind? Might there not be another view in the Medrash on the same subject, a view which might be more "palatable", more "reasonable" and more understandable to the student?
Our first object is to draw attention to how wrong it is to quote Medrashim in an unqualified way within an adult education framework. Similarly, it is wrong to quote an astonishing, "impossible" opinion where a more "feasible" opinion exists within the works of Chazal. And, where an opinion is the only opinion but is not palatable in its suprficial presentation to the mind and taste of the "modern" beginner, then who says it has to be quoted at all at this early stage of education?
Coming back to our original case, the teacher who was responsible for the student posing these questions about Rivka and Livyoson to a rabbi had chosen:-
Should we teach Aggados and Medrashim? Our answer is a reserved "yes". Yes, but, when, and only when, we know how to teach them. This includes knowing whom we are teaching. In such a case we can actually create a Kiddush HaShem as realisation dawns on the beginner that the Torah is so full of wisdom.
Aggada and medrash will only achieve the desired end in the hands of a teacher who understands the pupil and understands the system employed by the authors of the text. Chazal used the vehicle of Aggada to transmit great and lofty principles of Emunah, or deep, mystical secrets. Much which was too precious to reveal indiscriminately was couched in the language of the Aggada and the Medrash.
In truth, there are few subjects which can prove as appealing to a beginner as a wise revelation of the deeper meaning of a Medrash. Chazal tell us that Aggados "draw" us towards HaShem and help us to recognise Him. But one has to have the right "key" to their understanding and presentation. One has to know how to select, what to leave out, and how to convincingly present and explain what one does teach. One also has to know whom one is teaching.
Otherwise, one is better off avoiding medrash. (So the RaMBaM and Rebbi Yehudah HeChossid tell us!)
"If so", you may ask, "how should one go about teaching Aggada to adults?".
There is no easy way or short cut. One has to devote time and effort to learning from a suitably qualified Rebbe. We are fortunate in this country that the foundations of high level Torah study were laid by Rav Eliyahu Eliezer Dessler, zl. He was a master at explaining chazal, and his talmidim after him have educated various generations of men and women, showing them time and again deep insights into chazal. Books, too, are available which, depending on our level, can be used to guide us in this vital area of Talmud Torah.
Techniques may be learned by studying Ramchal's Ma'amar on Aggados, the introduction of Rabbi Avraham ben HaRaMBam found in the Vilna edition of the Ein Ya'akov, the introduction of the RaMBaM himself to Perek Chelek which we quoted above, the works of the MaHaRaL, and many other such seforim. A modern work in English is Rav Aharon Feldman's translation and adaptation of the Vilna Gaon's commentary on some obscure Aggados, published under the title of "The Juggler & the King".
Till this is done, let us supply some guidelines for teaching Medrash and Aggada within an adult education situation.
In this way one will, hopefully, avoid finding oneself in the situation in which a young ex-Sem. girl recently found herself. Someone to whom she was trying to teach sedra said to her "It's all piffle!", after seeing a medrash quoted by Rashi.
We can take a final idea from the RaMBaM's words at the end of Hilchos Meila. "It is only right that a person should delve deeply into the laws of our Holy Torah and try and penetrate their depths as far as he is capable. Should he find no reason for any point, he should nevertheless not take it lightly. He should not think about the Torah as one thinks of secular matters. See how severely the Torah takes the concept of "Me'iloh", of inadvertent desecration. By dedicating wood and stones and dust and ashes to the Sanctuary with simple words, one associates G-d's name with them and they become sanctified. Should they subsequently be treated as profane, even inadvertently, atonement is needed. How much more so that the words of G-d should not be profaned,