In recent years, the question of how to approach midrashic and aggadic teachings has often prompted heated debate in online Torah groups. Many contributors have grown up regarding Rashi as the primary commentary to the Chumash and are therefore strongly inclined to integrate such teachings into their understanding of the plain meaning of the text. Other peshat-enthusiasts will militantly push back against any midrashic interpretation – even when it presents itself as a historical tradition or legitimate attempt to understand an idiosyncrasy in the biblical text.
In a cryptic episode which follows the splitting of the sea, the parched Israelites discover water at Marah, but it turns out to be unpalatable. God instructs Moshe to cast wood into the water thereby making it drinkable, following which “He gave them a statute and an ordinance [chok umishpat]”. These terms are identical to those used elsewhere in the Torah to refer to the commandment, but there is no indication in the verses as to the nature or identity of the laws being conveyed.
An aggadic teaching, cited by Rashi, attempts to furnish the missing information:
“In Marah, He gave them some sections of the Torah so that they would busy themselves with them, namely the Sabbath, the red heifer, and laws of jurisprudence. — [from Mechilta and Sanh. 56b]”
Writing in the third section (3:32) of Moreh Nevuchim, Rambam embraces this as a “true tradition”. Are we to suppose that Rambam possessed specific knowledge as to the historical accuracy of this teaching or does it perhaps represent a certain style of aggadah which calls out for a more literal rendering?
There are definitely a number of textual indicators which support the historicity of this aggadah. First, in the subsequent passage concerning mannah, reference is made to a recently commanded law concerning Shabbat – despite there being no explicit mention of this anywhere in the text:
“So he said to them, That is what God [previously] spoke, Tomorrow is a rest day, a holy Sabbath to the Lord.” [16:23] “See that the Lord has given you the Sabbath.” [16:29]
An argument can also made from within the biblical text itself that some civil law and jurisprudence was already taught to the nation before being recorded in parashat Mishpatim. This might explain why Yitro observed the nation queuing from morning to evening for Moshe to settle disputes that had arisen between different people. Furthermore, as Rav Hirsch points out, the civil case law contained in Mishpatim are not basic rules and definitions. Rather it presents more complex scenarios which presuppose prior knowledge of primary legal principles such as duty of care, ownership and contracts.
The most powerful indicator cited by Rambam, however, seems to be a passage in Yirmiyah (7:22-23):
“For neither did I speak with your forefathers nor did I command them on the day I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning a burnt offering or a sacrifice. But this thing did I command them, saying: Obey Me so that I am your God and you are My people, and you walk in all the ways that I command you.”
As explained by Rambam, these initial pre-Sinaitic teachings referred to by Yirmiyah contain God’s “primary intention” as taught at Marah; Shabbat which symbolically establishes the truth of God as Creator and civil laws which prohibit wrongdoing among the people. These are contrasted with sacrifices which were only taught later (seemingly as a secondary intention) in order to distance the Israelites from pagan belief and practice (for more on this read here).
It should be noted that the Marah midrash is certainly not the only occasion on which Rambam treats aggadic material as literal and historical. When it comes to the events surrounding Avraham’s early years and what qualified him to be addressed by God in such glowing terms at the start of Lech Lecha, Rambam relates in great detail – both in Mishneh Torah and Moreh Nevuchim – a summary of midrashim which describe his theological journey and battle with Nimrod. Perhaps on that occasion too, the midrash can be seen to be filling in a clear gap left unexplained by the biblical text.
In fact, as Judaism Reclaimed explores, the real question may be why a matter of such fundamental importance is not including in the Torah’s account to begin with and left for the midrashim to supplement!
For more details visit www.TalmudReclaimed.com
First posted on Facebook 28 January 2024, here.
