Q&A: Methods of Midrashic Interpretation
Methods of Midrashic Interpretation
Question
With God’s help
Hello Rabbi Michael,
In the past I asked you about the verses in the Ten Commandments—why we do not interpret them as a generalization, specification, and generalization (or inclusion, exclusion, and inclusion), like this: “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness” — generalization; “that is in the heavens above, or on the earth beneath,” etc. — specification; “You shall not bow down to them” — returns to a generalization.
You answered me at the time that the specification in this case includes every possible form in every place in the world (in heaven, on earth, and in the water), and therefore it excludes nothing.
However, this week I saw additional similar verses in the portion of Vaetchanan, regarding which there is a similar question, and there that answer does not seem applicable. In chapter 4 it says:
“Lest you act corruptly and make for yourselves a carved image, the form of any symbol” — generalization,
“the likeness of male or female; the likeness of any beast that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged bird that flies in the heavens;
the likeness of anything that creeps on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the waters beneath the earth; and lest you lift your eyes to heaven and see the sun and the moon and the stars, all the host of heaven, and be drawn away and bow down to them and serve them, which the Lord your God has allotted to all the peoples under the whole heaven…” — a long specification,
“Take heed lest you forget the covenant of the Lord your God, which He made with you, and make for yourselves a carved image, the form of anything that the Lord your God commanded you [not to make]” — returns to a generalization.
It is not clear to me why we should not say that this too should be interpreted as generalization, specification, and generalization, or inclusion, exclusion, and inclusion—and the result would supposedly be, God forbid, that there is no prohibition on making an image that is not similar to the specification that appears in the verses; or that we exclude only one thing (if we interpret it as inclusion and exclusion). Either way, that is not what we know today—that there is a sweeping prohibition on every idol and every form that exists in the world!
I know that this interpretation does not fit the known Jewish law, and it sounds absurd because the Holy One has no bodily form, but when I analyze it on a purely intellectual level, I simply do not understand why not interpret it this way.
I have intrusive thoughts about this, because I feel as though I have, God forbid, heretical thoughts in my head; yet on the other hand, this is how the Sages interpret all the verses in the Torah, and here the verse really does seem to fit those categories, so why not?
I would be glad for a clear answer from the Rabbi that will remove my doubts and concerns about this.
Thank you very much for the help,
Best regards
Answer
Hello Y.,
First of all, it would be good to relax. The fact that we do not fully understand the methods of midrashic interpretation is not a heretical thought and should not lead to intrusive thoughts. Questions should be thought about and answers sought without pressure. Beyond that, all of us would be happy to have clear answers that remove all our doubts and concerns, but unfortunately that is not always available. So one can remain with doubts, and nothing terrible happens.
The examples you brought also fall under what I wrote to you then. They include everything. What exactly would you want to derive from them? There is a specification here that apparently comes to sharpen the point that the prohibition is sweeping, not a specification meant for the hermeneutic of generalization and specification.
I will just emphasize that the interpretive rules are not mathematics, and the decision whether to interpret in that way or not depends on reading the verses and understanding them. It is possible that the interpreter understands that sometimes the specification is meant to emphasize severity and not for a generalization-specification derivation, as I suggested here.
Discussion on Answer
Then we would have to think of something else. In any case, it is not reasonable that there is such a broad specification merely to exclude one detail that you found which does not appear there. So that itself is an argument against using generalization and specification in these verses.
I would just note that according to the Sages, “any symbol” does not include all the details that follow it (a symbol is one thing; the form of an animal is something else). For they interpreted: Could it be that he may not make for himself the image of any symbol, but may make the likeness of beast, animal, or bird? The Talmudic text therefore says: “the likeness of any beast that is on the earth, the likeness of any bird,” etc.
So there is not here a generalization and specification, but only a list of specifications followed by a general statement.
A specification followed by a generalization is also interpreted as an inclusion.
A specification followed by a generalization—the general statement adds to the specification.
The specification does not come to narrow the general statement in the case of specification and generalization.
And everything falls into place nicely.
Not true. That is a common mistake. A specification followed by a generalization is a broad expansion of the specifics, but not a total expansion. Otherwise, it would have been enough to write the general statement alone. The difference is in the number of aspects. Specification and generalization is expansion on one aspect; generalization and specification is four aspects; and generalization, specification, and generalization is two aspects or three (depending on whether the first generalization is primary or the last one is primary). See the second book in the Talmudic Logic series.
Are there proofs there beyond the reasoning that otherwise why was the specification written?
Because as far as I know, there is an opinion that even in generalization, specification, and generalization, similarity in one aspect is enough (in tractate Nazir).
No. There is no such opinion there.
Interesting to see what you said stated explicitly in a rabbinic midrashic interpretation:
“You shall not make for yourself a carved image. One might think he may not make for himself a cast image, but he may make a solid one; therefore the Talmudic text says: ‘or any likeness.’ He may not make for himself a solid one, but he may plant for himself a planting; therefore the Talmudic text says: ‘You shall not plant for yourself an Asherah.’ He may not plant for himself a planting, but he may make one of wood; therefore the Talmudic text says: ‘any tree.’ He may not make one of wood, but he may make one of stone; therefore the Talmudic text says: ‘a figured stone.’ He may not make one of stone, but he may make one of silver; therefore the Talmudic text says: ‘gods of silver.’ He may not make one of silver, but he may make one of gold; therefore the Talmudic text says: ‘and gods of gold.’ He may not make one of gold, but he may make one of copper, tin, or lead; therefore the Talmudic text says: ‘molten gods you shall not make.’ He may not make the likeness of any of these, but he may make the likeness of any symbol; therefore the Talmudic text says: ‘lest you act corruptly and make for yourselves a carved image, the form of any symbol.’ He may not make the likeness of any symbol, but he may make the likeness of beast, animal, and bird; therefore the Talmudic text says: ‘the likeness of any beast that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged bird.’ He may not make the likeness of any of these, but he may make the likeness of fish, locusts, swarming things, and creeping things; therefore the Talmudic text says: ‘the likeness of anything that creeps on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the water.’ He may not make the likeness of any of these, but he may make the likeness of the sun and moon, stars and constellations; therefore the Talmudic text says: ‘and lest you lift your eyes to heaven,’ etc. He may not make the likeness of any of these, but he may make the likeness of angels, cherubs, ophanim, and hashmalim; therefore the Talmudic text says: ‘that is in the heavens.’ If ‘that is in the heavens,’ one might think the likeness of the sun and moon and stars and constellations; therefore the Talmudic text says: ‘above’—not the likeness of angels, not the likeness of cherubs, not the likeness of ophanim. He may not make the likeness of any of these, but he may make the likeness of the deep, darkness, and gloom; therefore the Talmudic text says: ‘and that is beneath the earth.’
‘And that is in the waters beneath the earth’—to include the bubya, these are the words of Rabbi Akiva; and some say, to include the shvaririm. Scripture pursued the evil inclination so intensely as not to give it any room to find a pretext for permission.
You can see that the Tannaim themselves noticed this broad specification in the Torah and understood that it comes to spell out all possible cases, and has nothing to do with interpreting it as generalization, specification, and generalization.
All right, more power to you,
and sorry for being a nuisance..
Indeed. More power to you.
Hello,
I just have one more small clarification that came to me this morning during the Torah reading. It says: “and he went and served other gods and bowed down to them, and to the sun or the moon or all the host of heaven, which I have not commanded.”
Seemingly, what is the need here to specify the sun and moon and the host of heaven? After all, “other gods” includes everything. Why is this not a generalization and specification?
Best regards
There is a conjunctive “and” here. Meaning, the details are not a specification of the general category, but are added to it. It is possible that from here comes Maimonides’ source at the beginning of the laws of idolatry, that it is forbidden to pray and worship the Holy One by way of the sun and moon. That is not worship of other gods, but rather of the sun and moon as representatives of the Holy One.
Thank you very much for the reassurance..
In any case, what if we find something that is not included in the above specifications—say, the form of some inanimate object? Or if they suddenly discover some new animal that is not included in the Torah’s specification, what would we do then?
Best regards