Category: Focus on How We Teach (Fall 2004)

Many teachers shy away from using Midrash in the classroom, despite the ease with which they teach Rashi’s midrash-laden commentary. Because there is no well-established style of Midrash study, teachers may hesitate to introduce what feels like a wild card into their lessons. This is a pity, because Midrash has the potential to greatly enhance the learning experience for both teachers and students.

To explore what might be done with midrashic sources in the classroom, let us analyze a selection from Exodus Rabbah 1:32 which discusses a familiar story. The excerpt that follows is part of a longer commentary on Exodus 2:15-20. Moshe, having killed an Egyptian overseer, has fled to Midian where he encounters Yitro’s daughters and saves them from persecution by the local shepherds. Arriving home, the young women tell their father about their savior.

And they said, “An Egyptian man saved us from the hand of the shepherds.” (Exodus 2:19)

And was Moshe an Egyptian?
Rather his clothing was Egyptian and he was a Hebrew.
Another explanation of “an Egyptian man”:
This may be compared to someone bitten by a poisonous lizard,
who was running to put his feet in the water.
He put them in the river,
and saw a child drowning in the water,
and sent out his hand and saved him.
The child said to him,
“If not for you, I would already be dead.”
[The man] said to him,
“It is not I who saved you,
but rather the lizard that bit me and I fled from him—
he saved you.”
Thus, the daughters of Yitro said to Moshe,
“Thank you for saving us from the hands of the shepherds.”
Moshe said to them,
“That Egyptian whom I killed—
he saved you.”
And therefore they said to their father,
“An Egyptian man…”
which is to say,
“Who caused this one [Moshe] to come to us?
The Egyptian man who he killed.”

Solving an Interpretive Problem

Line (1) tells us that the midrash is troubled by what appears to be a discrepancy between the Biblical verse and the realities of the ancient world. Moshe, as we know, is a Hebrew—i.e., Semitic. Egyptians, descendants of Ham, are racially quite distinct from their Hebrew slaves. How can Yitro’s daughters describe Moshe to their father as “an Egyptian man”?

The first answer suggested by the midrash (line 2) is that Yitro’s daughters identify Moshe as an Egyptian because he is dressed like one. This may mean that they have been deceived by his clothing and have concluded, erroneously, that he is actually Egyptian. (Recall that Yosef’s brothers make the same mistake in Genesis 42:8 when they meet him in the guise of Tzafnat Paneah.) Alternatively, Yitro’s daughters are using the description “an Egyptian man” as shorthand for “a Hebrew man in Egyptian clothing”. In either case, according to this explanation, the phrase “an Egyptian man” refers unambiguously to Moshe.

Analyzing a Mashal (Parable)

The second reading offered by the midrash (lines 3-24) is more complex. It takes the form of a mashal (parable) and adds dialogue to the biblical story. We will try to analyze the subtleties of this mashal, using a methodology for understanding parables taken from my book, Learning to Read Midrash (Urim Publications 2004).

Readers of the parable genre have a tendency to skim the mashal portion of a midrash while focusing primarily on the nimshal (explanation of the mashal) because they assume that the “punch line” of the midrash is to be found in the nimshal. A careful study of midrashic sources shows, however, that each part of the midrash requires scrutiny. For this reason, the first step in our analysis is to examine the mashal part of the midrash (lines 4-14) as a story in its own right.

The mashal describes a man who has been bitten by a poisonous lizard. Rushing to the river to rinse his feet, he finds a drowning child, whom he saves. When the child expresses gratitude, the man answers that it was actually the lizard which saved the child. If the lizard had not bitten the man, he would not have been present at the river to perform the rescue.

The story is straightforward and consistent. Still, it is worth pausing to consider the nature of the rescuer’s message to the child. One possibility is that he is deflecting the child’s gratitude out of modesty or humility. It might be, though, that he really does not see himself as the child’s rescuer, attributing his presence at the river to circumstances beyond his control. Is the man perhaps addressing himself as well as the child in recognizing that what seemed to be a disaster, has proven in actuality to be Providential? Whatever meaning we assign to the rescuer’s words, they are deeper than they appear at first glance; there are several interpretive options open to us.

Listing the Elements

Our next step is to list the elements of the mashal, preparatory to finding correspondences for them. As we will see, this step requires some decision-making on our part to determine whether each element in the story is significant for our analysis. A preliminary list follows, with questionable elements in brackets:

man
being bitten
poisonous lizard
running to put feet in water
[river]
child
drowning
saving the child
“If not for you, I would already be dead.”
the man’s answer (“It is not I who saved you…”)

The element “river” has been bracketed because some readers see it as another way of saying that the man has run to put his feet in the water; other readers have suggested that it is a separate element. (See the discussion below.)

Finding Correspondences

Having listed the elements of the mashal, our next job is to find correspondences for them. As is often the case when examining a nimshal, we find that this one is rather sketchy, leaving us with many gaps to fill. For one thing, the nimshal (lines 15-21) only deals with the second part of the mashal-story. It begins with Yitro’s daughters thanking Moshe for rescuing them, continues with Moshe’s answer, and concludes with what they tell their father. (These elements of dialogue are not actually in the biblical story. They are a narrative expansion, i.e., a midrashic story which broadens the biblical text. We should note that in this case, the narrative expansion meshes well with the biblical story. That Yitro’s daughters should have thanked Moshe for saving them is quite plausible, as is Moshe’s response, especially in light of the quality of humility attributed to him in the Torah.)

Returning to our task, let us list the correspondences from the nimshal below:

man	Moshe
being bitten
poisonous lizard
running to put feet in water
[river]
child	Yitro's daughters
drowning	being tormented by the shepherds
saving the child	Moshe rescuing them
“If not for you, I would already be dead.”	"Thank you for saving us..."(line 16)
the man’s answer (“It is not I who saved you…”)	"That Egyptian...he saved you." (lines 18-19)

We are left with three, or possibly four, correspondences to complete. This can be done by going back to the biblical text, specifically the story of Moshe’s flight from Egypt in the wake of killing the overseer. As is implied in the nimshal, “the poisonous lizard” is the Egyptian overseer whom Moshe has killed, which entails that “being bitten” is the killing of the Egyptian. Following this line of thought, “running to put his feet in water” must refer to Moshe’s flight to Midian to escape retribution, while the “river” might be a reference to Moshe’s “sitting at the well” (Exodus 2:15). Our final listing of elements and correspondences follows:

man	Moshe
being bitten	killing the Egyption
poisonous lizard	the Egyptian overseer
running to put feet in water	fleeing to Midian
[river]	sitting at the well
child	Yitro's daughters
drowning	being tormented by the shepherds
saving the child	Moshe rescuing them
“If not for you, I would already be dead.”	"Thank you for saving us..."(line 16)
the man’s answer (“It is not I who saved you…”)	"That Egyptian...he saved you." (lines 18-19)

Drawing Conclusions:

I. “Being Bitten by the Lizard”

When we view the midrash this way, the unexpected nature of some of the correspondences becomes quite noticeable. The characterization of the Egyptian overseer as a poisonous lizard is easily understood; after all, the biblical text tells us that Moshe sees him brutally beating a slave. It seems strange, though, to describe Moshe’s killing of the Egyptian in terms of his being bitten by the lizard. The Egyptian dies at Moshe’s hand—not the reverse—so we do not expect an image that makes Moshe seem to be the Egyptian’s victim.

One way to resolve this difficulty is to say that Moshe can indeed be described as the Egyptian’s victim, albeit indirectly, since Moshe must flee for his life after the event. This reading is certainly possible, but the incongruity of the “man-bitten-by-the-lizard” image as a description of Moshe killing the Egyptian remains. Perhaps, then, the midrash is conveying a subtler message: that Moshe’s killing of the Egyptian is in some way problematic.

On a first reading of Exodus 2:11-12, we are inclined to view Moshe’s action as a wholly righteous response to the oppression of an innocent person. Exodus Rabba 1:28-29 and most of the classic commentaries take this position, discussing how and why Moshe acts as he does. We should note, though, that these sources take pains to justify Moshe’s behavior precisely because what he does would ordinarily be viewed as a shocking breach of judicial norms. (See in particular the Gur Arye’s commentary on Rashi’s explanation of Exodus 2:12.) And, as we have seen, our mashal characterizes the episode as something that “poisons” Moshe. The implication seems to be that while Moshe’s action is necessary in the circumstances, its effect upon Moshe is not altogether desirable. Moshe kills the Egyptian because he must, but the episode leaves its mark. This can be seen even in the taunt of the slave whom Moshe tries to prevent from striking a fellow Israelite: “Who made you a prince and a judge over us? Do you want to kill me, as you killed the Egyptian?” (Exodus 2:14) Moshe appears tainted in the eyes of this slave, although his action can be justified on many grounds.

After fleeing Egypt, Moshe finds himself in a situation which bears a strong resemblance to his defense of the Hebrew slave, namely, the rescue of Yitro’s daughters. Significantly, in this incident, Moshe is able to protect the defenseless women without having to kill anyone, despite the fact that he must contend with more than one assailant. Perhaps the midrash is suggesting that Moshe has learned a critical lesson from his encounter with the Egyptian, causing him to modify his behavior in a similarly threatening situation. When dealing with violent people one must be wary of being compromised.

II. The “Drowning Child” Image

We might also ask why the midrash uses the image of a drowning child to describe Yitro’s daughters. To be sure, the midrash is picking up on water imagery already present in the biblical story. As we have noted, Moshe chooses to “sit at the well” when he comes to Midian, and this aspect of the story resonates with similar episodes in the Tanakh, such as Yaakov’s first encounter with Rahel. The context of this midrash in Exodus Rabba may also be significant in determining the “drowning” image. The section of Exodus Rabba immediately preceding this excerpt suggests on the basis of the word vayoshian (“and he saved them”) that the shepherds in fact tried to drown Yitro’s daughters.

However, the “child” image may have additional significance. For one thing, it emphasizes the helplessness of Yitro’s daughters in their encounter with the shepherds; like a drowning child, they cannot help themselves and must be saved. The effect of this is to validate Moshe’s intervention. Beyond this, the use of the child image highlights Moshe’s spiritual greatness relative to theirs. Yitro’s daughters behave as they should in expressing gratitude to their rescuer, but Moshe’s response shows impressive spiritual depth. Even as he models the qualities of humility and modesty, he gently teaches them an important lesson about hashgaha pratit (Divine intervention) and the limits of human initiative. Moshe’s understanding of God’s ways is that of a “man”; Yitro’s daughters, like children, still have much to learn.

Taking Midrash into the Classroom

How does a midrash like the one we have analyzed here help the teacher? First, and most significant, careful analysis of a midrash can enrich and deepen the teacher’s understanding of the text—an indispensable prerequisite to preparing stimulating lessons. Without the midrashic commentary above, a verse like Exodus 2:19, appears to convey relatively little; with the commentary, there is much to be mined from it. Indeed, the issues raised by a midrash, both methodological and content-related, can form the nucleus of a lesson (or lessons). The kinds of questions a midrash asks and answers, as well as the manner in which it approaches a verse can be used to sensitize students to the subtleties of the biblical text, giving them methodological tools which extend beyond the immediate lesson. (In this respect, teaching midrash is like teaching parshanut. The reader needs to figure out what feature of the text prompts the commentary and how the commentary can be read back into the text.) In addition, the theological, moral, ethical, and spiritual lessons encoded in the midrash add vitality and immediacy to the lesson, showing the students how Torah addresses their lives.

As teachers become familiar with midrashic sources and willing to make use of them educationally, they may discover that ideas and insights familiar from other sources actually originate in midrash. One may come to perceive midrash as the vast unconscious of the Jewish people, a view that has pedagogical ramifications. In the Torah classroom, for example, midrash can be taught in conjunction with classical commentary. It is sometimes illuminating to teach a midrash and then expose students to later sources that quote the midrashic teaching or are influenced by it. Similarly, in Jewish philosophy classes, a midrash which discusses a philosophical, theological, spiritual or moral question can be used to introduce the concept and/or teach it. For instance, a lesson surveying views on behira hofshit (free will) and hashgaha pratit (Divine intervention) might make use of the midrash analyzed above, or others like it, to explore the interaction between human initiative and the Divine plan. Having taught the midrash, the teacher might assign an essay on “Who Really Saved Yitro’s Daughters?” and build a lesson plan around the answers. (The ambiguities in the midrash leave plenty of room for unexpected responses.)

Once older students have learned the methodology for analyzing the mashal genre, they can be asked to study midrashic sources in hevruta pairs, or prepare them as homework for Tanakh lessons. (There are other midrashic genres, obviously, and different techniques for dealing with them. For an extensive discussion, see Peters, 2004.)

One high school teacher who has attempted this quite successfully told me that the resulting classroom interactions were both focused and lively. The mashal methodology forced students to be disciplined in their interpretations and justify their readings, while allowing them the freedom to be creative and explore all sorts of possibilities in the text. Students enjoyed the challenge of solving the “puzzle” and liked having to come up with the answers themselves. Insights felt “earned,” and therefore, more valuable.

The applications of midrash study in the classroom are limited only by the teacher’s imagination. This vast body of classical teachings opens a remarkable range of possibilities to those willing to explore it.