Homiletical Midrash teaching lessons through stories, parables, and other illustrations, often linked with biblical figures. In a limited sense, the practice of interpreting the past in the light of current ideological tendencies is already apparent in the Book of Chronicles. With the sages of the Midrash, this tendentiousness becomes more pronounced and is motivated by a variety of ideological concerns. The sages viewed the Bible not only as a record of Divine revelation in the past but as a book that speaks to the present with its problems and concerns. This interpretation of the biblical text is rendered possible by the midrashic method, which seeks to uncover and derive meanings from the mere juxtaposition of certain events and commandments in Scripture.
For the modern exegete, the context of a phrase or word determines its meaning; not so for the authors of Midrash. Each word or phrase of the biblical text can be interpreted independently irregardless of the immediate context. For example, it is clear that in Psalms 22:7 ("But I am a worm, less than human, scorned by men, despised by people"), the Psalmist is referring to his own personal experience. The Midrash, however, takes it as a reference to Israel's despised position among the nations: "Just as the worm is the most despised of all creatures, so Israel is the most despised among the nations. But just as the only [visible] organ of the worm is its mouth, so by its mouth [through prayers and pleas to God] does Israel annul the evil decrees planned against them by the nations" (Midr. Ps. 22:18). Sometimes a biblical phrase is interpreted to yield a meaning diametrically opposed to its original intent. Thus, for example, the first verse of Lamentations ("Jerusalem has become like a widow") is turned into an expression of optimistic hope: "Like a widow, but not actually a widow. Rather as a woman whose husband has gone abroad but who intends to return to her" (MK 20a). The Midrash inverts the pessimism of Ecclesiastes into an expression of hope. Ecclesiastes 7:1 declares that "the day of death is better than the day of birth"; this general sentiment is illustrated by the lives of a number of biblical figures: Miriam, Aaron, David, and Samuel (Eccl. R. ad loc.) When they were born, they attracted little attention, but on their death they were universally mourned. Even the stern warnings in Scripture of the fearful fate that will overtake Israel should it fail to observe the Torah are turned by the midrashic method into promises of succor and salvation. Deuteronomy 1:44 ("They [the Amorites] chased after you as the bees and crushed you") is explained: "Just as the bee dies as soon as it has bitten someone, so will the enemy the moment he strikes one of you."
Biblical narrative is marked by a certain repetitiveness, a style found in ancient Semitic literature. For the sages of the Midrash these seemingly superfluous repetitions offered a challenge and an opportunity to create aggadic interpretations that would explain why they were necessary. Generally, the Midrash accepts the principle enunciated by R. Akiva: "The juxtaposition of two sections of the Torah is meant to teach some lesson" (Sif. Num. Balak 139). Thus the Midrash asks why the account of the death of Aaron follows that of the breaking of the two Tablets of the Covenant (Deut. 10:6-7). It answers: "The order is meant to teach that the death of the righteous is as grievous in the sight of God as the breaking of the two tablets" (Lev. R. 20:7).
Scripture rarely states the reason or the background of the commandments, events, or the emotional states of its characters, only recording them. The Midrash frequently supplies reasons and motives. Thus, following the account of Abraham< The Midrash utilizes metaphor and allegory in interpreting the biblical text. The wanton woman, against whose wiles the author of Proverbs repeatedly warns, is equated either with idolatry or sectarianism (e.g., Prov. 2:11-22). The sages of the Midrash often reject the plain meaning (Peshat) of the biblical text, for a variety of reasons: it may contradict common knowledge or experience; or they may wish to explain away anthropomorphisms. The plain meaning of the sensuousness of the Song of Songs and the cynical pessimism of Ecclesiastes offended the sages' sense of modesty in the former instance and their sense of religious faith in the latter. They interpreted the Song of Songs as an allegorical dialogue between God the lover and Israel His beloved, while to Ecclesiastes' repeated counsel to enjoy the material pleasures that life offers, they applied his own final judgment: "Behold it is all futile and a pursuit of wind" (Eccl. 2:11). These midrashic interpretations somewhat blunted the view of certain sages that both books should be excluded from the biblical canon. Nowhere is the concern to replace the plain meaning of the biblical text by a more acceptable midrashic meaning more perceptible than in the treatment of certain discreditable episodes in the lives of biblical figures. Thus, David's affair with Bathsheba is explained away by the theory that she had already been divorced by her husband, Uriah, since before going into battle David's soldiers granted a conditional divorce to their wives (Shab. 56a). In the Midrash, David even emerges as a talmudic rabbi engaged in deciding ritual law (Ber. 3b). A further characteristic of the midrashic method is its repeated use of plays on words to derive some moral or religious message. Deuteronomy 23:14 says: "With your gear (azenekha) you shall have a spike." The Midrash reads azenekha as oznekha ("your ear"), and explains that the Bible intends to state that when you hear malicious gossip, put a finger to your ear and thus shut out the words (Ket. 5a). Midrashic literature may to a considerable extent consist of fragments of sermons delivered in the synagogue on Friday evenings or on Sabbath afternoons. In addition to these, there is at least one Midrash (Leviticus Rabbah) in which each homily consists of a single consistent theme, virtually an entire sermon. The final type of aggadah is the legend either unrelated to a Scriptural verse or only tangentially so. Frequently, the motifs of these legends are to be found in general folk tales. The legend of King Solomon and Ashmedai (Asmodeus), prince of the demons, is a typical example (Git. 68a). However, almost invariably, some specifically Jewish cast is given to such legends. The Talmud (TJ, Pe'ah 2:8) says that halakhic conclusions are not to be drawn from the aggadah. Nevertheless, later halakhists did so repeatedly in the Responsa literature. See also Genesis Rabbah; Exodus Rabbah; Leviticus Rabbah; Numbers Rabbah; Deuteronomy Rabbah; Lamentations Rabbah; Esther Rabbah; Song of Songs Rabbah; Ruth Rabbah; Ecclesiastes Rabbah; Pesikta De-Rav Kahana; Tanna De-Vé Eliyyahu; Pirké De-Rabbi Eliezer; Midrash Va-Yissa'U; Midrash Tadshé; Targum Sheni; Midrash Proverbs; Midrash Samuel; Tanḥuma; Pesikta Rabbati; Midrash Tehillim (Psalms); Aggadat Bereshit; Lekaḥ Tov; Yalkut Shimoni; Midrash Ha-Gadol; Yalkut Makhiri; En Ya'Akov.
