Chapter 6:The Rise of Interpretation - From Text to Commentary (Early Midrash and Second Temple Expansions)

This chapter is part of the book The Sacred Editors: Judaism.

"Turn it, and turn it again, for everything is in it." ---Pirkei Avot 5:22

The verse seemed clear enough: "You shall not boil a kid in its mother's milk." (Exodus 23:19)

But what did it actually mean?

A young student in second-century Babylon raises her hand in the bet midrash. Rabbi Akiva has just read the verse aloud, and she wants to understand its purpose. The afternoon light streams through the high windows of the study hall, illuminating dust motes that dance above the assembled scholars like the very words they seek to interpret. Is this commandment about preventing animal cruelty? Avoiding a specific pagan ritual? Establishing a dietary boundary between Israel and the nations?

The rabbi smiles. This is the question he hoped someone would ask. He points out that the Torah repeats this commandment three times---in Exodus, again in Deuteronomy, and once more in a different context. "Why three times?" he asks. "Because the Torah is teaching us three separate laws: not to cook meat and milk together, not to eat them together, and not to derive benefit from their mixture."

The student frowns. "But Rabbi, the text only mentions cooking."

"Exactly," Akiva replies. "Which teaches us that the Torah speaks in hints and condensations. Every repetition, every unusual word, every apparent redundancy carries meaning. The text says what it says---but it also says what it implies, what it assumes, what it leaves unsaid."

From that one verse about a kid and its mother's milk would emerge the comprehensive system of Jewish dietary law separating meat and dairy products. The text had not changed. But the world around it had---and so had the community's interpretive needs.

What emerged to meet that need was midrash: not just commentary, but a revolutionary approach to sacred text that found infinite meaning within finite words.

The Necessity of Interpretation

By the time Jewish communities were rebuilding after the Temple's destruction, a fundamental problem had become unavoidable: the Torah, however sacred, could not address every situation its readers faced.

The text was finite. Life was not.

Jews in Babylon encountered commercial practices unknown in ancient Israel. Communities in Alexandria navigated Greek philosophical questions that biblical authors had never considered. Families in Rome faced questions about maintaining kosher practice when local food systems operated by entirely different principles.

The Torah provided essential foundations---ethical principles, ritual frameworks, community boundaries. But it could not possibly anticipate every circumstance. What was needed was a method for extracting divine guidance from sacred text even when that guidance was not explicitly stated.

This was not a new problem. Already within the Hebrew Bible itself, later authors reinterpreted earlier traditions. Chronicles retold the stories of Samuel and Kings with different theological emphases. Nehemiah 8 describes Ezra reading Torah to the returned exiles "with interpretation" because the text required explanation for changed circumstances. Even earlier, Deuteronomy frequently reinterprets laws from Exodus and Leviticus for new situations.

But the post-Temple period elevated interpretation from occasional necessity to systematic methodology. The result was midrash---from the Hebrew root darash, meaning "to seek, to inquire, to investigate."

This was more than simple commentary. As Michael Fishbane observes, "The interpretive enterprise in ancient Israel was not merely exegetical but transformational---old traditions were constantly reinterpreted to speak to new situations."¹

Second Temple Precedents: Rewriting Scripture

The interpretive impulse was already flourishing during the Second Temple period, producing a remarkable library of texts that expanded, recontextualized, and reimagined biblical stories. These works demonstrate that creative interpretation was not a post-70 CE innovation but an established tradition within Judaism.

The Book of Jubilees, composed in the 2nd century BCE, retells Genesis and parts of Exodus in chronological order---but embeds an entire legal and calendrical system into the familiar narrative. Jubilees doesn't simply recount the story of Abraham; it explains that Abraham discovered the proper solar calendar, observed the Festival of Weeks, and taught Isaac the laws of ritual purity. These weren't arbitrary additions but attempts to show that later Jewish practices had ancient, even primordial, origins.

Consider this passage from Jubilees describing Abraham's discovery of proper worship: "And in the sixth week, in the seventh year thereof, Abraham said to his father Terah: 'Father!' And he said: 'Here am I, my son.' And he said: 'What help and profit have we from those idols which you worship and before which you bow yourself? For there is no spirit in them, for they are dumb.'" This expansion transforms the terse biblical notice that Abraham left his father's house into a theological drama about monotheistic discovery.²

The Genesis Apocryphon from Qumran takes a different approach, filling narrative gaps with psychological detail and dramatic expansion. When the text mentions Sarah's beauty, the Apocryphon provides Abram's own words describing her "lovely eyes" and "radiant face" and his fears about traveling to Egypt. When Genesis simply states that Abram became wealthy, the Apocryphon details his livestock, servants, and precious metals.

Perhaps most remarkably, the Temple Scroll completely rewrites portions of Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy into a new legal code presented as direct divine speech. Where the biblical text often reports God speaking to Moses, the Temple Scroll presents God speaking directly to the reader: "You shall build me a sanctuary..." rather than "Moses said the Lord commanded, 'Build me a sanctuary...'"

As Hindy Najman argues, these texts represent "a form of continued revelation"---not commentary on Scripture but new Scripture that claimed equal authority with inherited tradition. This demonstrates that Second Temple Jewish communities understood the boundary between text and interpretation quite differently than later traditions would.³

The Emergence of Rabbinic Midrash

While Second Temple interpretation was often embedded within rewritten biblical narratives, rabbinic midrash developed as an explicitly interpretive methodology. The early rabbis faced a particular challenge: how to maintain both fidelity to received text and responsiveness to new circumstances.

Their solution was ingenious. They developed techniques for finding new meaning within the exact words of inherited Scripture. This allowed them to be simultaneously conservative (preserving every letter of the traditional text) and innovative (discovering new applications and implications).

The Mekhilta on Exodus illustrates this approach. When the text states that Pharaoh's army "pursued" the Israelites at the Red Sea, the midrash asks why the verb appears in singular form when referring to multiple pursuers. Answer: it teaches that they all pursued with one heart, unified in their evil intention. When the text mentions that the sea "returned to its strength" (le-eitano), the midrash notices that the letters of eitano can be rearranged to spell tenai (condition), teaching that God made a condition with the sea at creation that it would split for the Israelites.

These interpretations might seem forced to modern readers, but they reflect a sophisticated theology: every detail of Scripture---grammar, word choice, letter arrangement---carries intentional meaning. The Torah speaks in human language, but divine wisdom exceeds human expression. Therefore, the interpreter's task is to uncover layers of meaning that may not be immediately apparent.

As Michael Fishbane observes, "Midrash is not commentary in the modern sense. It is revelation received again."⁴

Types and Functions of Midrash

Over time, midrashic interpretation developed into distinct genres, each serving different communal needs and addressing different aspects of post-Temple Jewish life:

Midrash Halakhah focused on legal interpretation, showing how specific laws could be derived from biblical text. The Sifra on Leviticus demonstrates how ritual laws could be extended, limited, or applied to new circumstances through careful textual analysis. When Leviticus states that animal sacrifices must be "without blemish," the Sifra derives detailed criteria for what constitutes a disqualifying defect and establishes principles for priestly inspection.

For example, the Sifra asks why Leviticus 22:21 states that a sacrifice must be "perfect (tamim) to be accepted." The text continues: "there shall be no blemish (mum) in it." Why mention both perfection and absence of blemish? The midrash concludes that tamim refers to internal perfection while mum addresses external defects, thus establishing that both physical and constitutional soundness are required.⁵

Midrash Aggadah explored biblical narratives, character development, and theological themes. The Genesis Rabbahtransforms terse biblical stories into rich psychological dramas. When Genesis mentions that Rebecca "ran" to draw water for Abraham's servant, the midrash explains that this demonstrated her exceptional kindness---she didn't just offer help but eagerly provided it. When the text states that Jacob "loved" Rachel more than Leah, aggadic interpretation explores the emotional complexity of this family situation and its consequences for the tribal development of Israel.

Pesher interpretation, found especially in the Dead Sea Scrolls, applied prophetic texts to contemporary circumstances. The Qumran community read biblical prophecies as coded references to their own historical situation, with the "Teacher of Righteousness" and the "Wicked Priest" appearing throughout their interpretations of Habakkuk and other prophetic books.

Each type of midrash served essential communal functions: halakhic interpretation provided legal guidance for changed circumstances, aggadic expansion made Scripture accessible for education and inspiration, and pesher interpretation demonstrated the continuing relevance of ancient prophecy for contemporary communities.

The Claim to Authority

Midrash was not merely an intellectual exercise. It represented a claim to religious authority in the post-Temple world where traditional sources of guidance had been disrupted or destroyed.

With the priesthood decimated and sacrifice impossible, various groups competed for leadership of Jewish communities. Some early Christians argued that Jesus's messiahship made traditional Jewish law obsolete. Sectarian groups like those at Qumran claimed special revelation through their Teacher of Righteousness. Hellenistic Jewish philosophers like Philo developed allegorical interpretations that integrated Greek wisdom with Jewish tradition.

The rabbis offered something different: a living tradition rooted in systematic interpretation. Their authority rested not in claims to new prophecy or in inherited priestly status, but in demonstrated ability to reveal divine meaning through textual analysis.

This approach had several advantages. It was democratic in principle---anyone capable of learning could potentially become an interpreter. It was flexible---new circumstances could be addressed without rejecting inherited tradition. And it was sustainable---interpretive authority could be transmitted through teaching rather than depending on charismatic leaders or institutional structures.

The midrashic claim was bold: the rabbis possessed not just the written Torah but also the interpretive keys to unlock its full meaning. As the Mishnah would later state: "Moses received Torah from Sinai and transmitted it to Joshua, and Joshua to the Elders, and the Elders to the Prophets, and the Prophets transmitted it to the Men of the Great Assembly" (Avot 1:1). This chain of transmission included not just the text itself but the authoritative method for interpreting it.

A Living Example: From Verse to Law

The transformation of "You shall not boil a kid in its mother's milk" into comprehensive dietary law illustrates how midrashic interpretation worked in practice and demonstrates the creative potential inherent in the method.

The verse appears three times in the Torah (Exodus 23:19, 34:26, Deuteronomy 14:21), always in contexts dealing with agricultural festivals. Its original meaning may have been quite specific---perhaps prohibiting a Canaanite ritual practice or establishing a principle about not mixing different categories of Creation.

But rabbinic interpretation found broader significance in the repetition. The Mekhilta explains: "One verse teaches that you shall not cook them together. One teaches that you shall not eat them together. And one teaches that you shall not derive benefit from them together."

This hermeneutical principle---that repetition in Scripture indicates multiple applications---opened vast interpretive possibilities. From this foundation, later rabbinic authorities developed detailed laws: separate sets of dishes for meat and dairy meals, waiting periods between eating meat and dairy products, supervision of food preparation to prevent mixture, and extended discussions about marginal cases---fish, eggs, foods that might contain either meat or dairy ingredients.

The result was a comprehensive dietary system that touches virtually every Jewish meal. None of this is explicitly stated in the biblical text. All of it emerges from interpretive principles that find maximum meaning in minimal textual hints.

As Jacob Neusner demonstrates, this process was not arbitrary but followed consistent methodological principles that could be taught, debated, and applied across different circumstances. The same interpretive techniques that generated dietary law could address questions about Sabbath observance, marriage law, business ethics, and countless other practical matters.⁶

What Would Have Changed?

The development of midrashic interpretation was crucial for Judaism's adaptation to post-Temple circumstances. Alternative approaches might have produced dramatically different results across multiple domains of Jewish life:

Literalist Preservation James Kugel suggests that if Jewish communities had insisted on purely literal interpretation of biblical law, much of Torah might have become irrelevant after the Temple's destruction. Sacrifice laws, purity regulations, and agricultural commandments might have been preserved only as historical artifacts rather than continuing to shape Jewish practice. This could have led to a more philosophical or ethical Judaism but one less connected to daily ritual observance.⁷

Philosophical Allegorization Had the allegorical approach of Philo and other Hellenistic Jewish thinkers become dominant, Judaism might have developed more like a philosophical school than a distinctive ethnic religion. David Winston argues that widespread adoption of allegorical interpretation could have spiritualized ritual practice away, making Judaism more compatible with Greco-Roman culture but potentially less capable of maintaining distinct communal identity.⁸

Sectarian Apocalypticism If groups like the Qumran community had survived to shape mainstream Judaism, interpretive authority might have remained concentrated among visionary leaders claiming special revelation. John Collins suggests that the pesher method's emphasis on contemporary application of ancient prophecy could have produced a Judaism more focused on eschatological expectation and less engaged with practical legal development.⁹

Christian Supersessionism Daniel Boyarin argues that without the development of distinctively Jewish interpretive traditions, Jewish communities might have found it more difficult to maintain separate identity as Christianity spread throughout the Roman Empire. The rabbis' claim to possess authoritative interpretive tradition helped establish Judaism as a continuing revelation rather than a preparation for Christianity.¹⁰

Scholar Debate

Contemporary scholars continue debating the origins, development, and significance of midrashic interpretation, with different perspectives reflecting broader questions about continuity and innovation in religious traditions:

James Kugel emphasizes the conservative intent of early biblical interpretation, arguing that interpreters were primarily concerned with harmonizing apparent contradictions and preserving traditional beliefs rather than innovating new meanings. In his comprehensive study of ancient biblical interpretation, Kugel demonstrates that most interpretive techniques developed as solutions to perceived problems in the text rather than attempts to discover hidden meanings. This perspective suggests that midrash was fundamentally conservative, seeking to preserve rather than transform inherited tradition.¹¹

Hindy Najman highlights the compositional creativity visible in rewritten Scripture, showing how Second Temple authors created new texts that claimed revelatory authority equal to inherited tradition. Her analysis of works like Jubilees and the Temple Scroll reveals sophisticated literary techniques that blur the boundary between interpretation and composition. This research suggests that ancient Jewish communities were more comfortable with textual innovation than later traditions would become, viewing creative interpretation as itself a form of divine inspiration.¹²

Michael Fishbane traces inner-biblical exegesis to demonstrate how interpretive methods visible in midrash were already developing within the Hebrew Bible itself, making rabbinic interpretation a natural continuation of biblical practice. His detailed analysis of how later biblical texts reinterpret earlier ones provides crucial evidence that interpretation was not a post-biblical innovation but an essential feature of biblical literature from its earliest stages. This perspective emphasizes continuity between biblical and post-biblical interpretive practices.¹³

David Stern examines midrash as literary performance, showing how rabbinic interpretation functioned not just to extract legal or theological principles but to create compelling narratives that could educate, inspire, and unite communities. His literary analysis reveals sophisticated rhetorical techniques that made midrash effective as both interpretation and entertainment, suggesting that aesthetic as well as exegetical concerns shaped midrashic development.¹⁴

These scholarly debates reflect broader questions about the relationship between preservation and innovation in religious traditions. Most scholars now recognize that midrash represents neither pure preservation nor complete innovation but a creative synthesis that allowed ancient texts to address new circumstances while maintaining connection to inherited wisdom.

Why It Still Matters

Midrashic interpretation continues to shape how Jews engage with Scripture and provides insights relevant for any community seeking to apply ancient wisdom to contemporary circumstances. Contemporary rabbis still use midrashic techniques in sermons and legal reasoning. Jewish education relies heavily on aggadic stories to make biblical narratives accessible to children and adults. Modern Jewish movements---feminist, ecological, social justice---often employ midrashic methods to find contemporary relevance in ancient texts.

Perhaps most importantly, midrash established interpretation as an ongoing religious obligation rather than a purely academic exercise. The tradition assumes that Scripture contains layers of meaning that each generation must discover for itself. This interpretive imperative means that Jewish engagement with text is never merely antiquarian but always involves the creative work of making ancient wisdom speak to contemporary circumstances.

The method also influenced Jewish intellectual culture more broadly. The assumption that texts contain multiple meanings, that close reading can reveal hidden connections, and that interpretive debate is itself a form of religious practice helped shape Jewish contributions to literature, philosophy, and scholarship across cultures and centuries.

For contemporary readers, whether Jewish or not, midrash offers a model of how religious communities can maintain fidelity to inherited tradition while remaining responsive to new challenges. It demonstrates that reverence for text and interpretive creativity can coexist, and that the most faithful reading of ancient wisdom may require precisely the kind of imaginative engagement that literalism tends to discourage.

The method also provides insight into how meaning emerges through the interaction between text and community. Midrash reveals that meaning is not simply contained within texts waiting to be discovered, but emerges through the encounter between ancient words and contemporary readers seeking guidance for their particular circumstances.

The rabbis who transformed dietary law from a single verse about kids and mother's milk created more than legal precedent. They established a way of reading that assumes divine wisdom exceeds human expression and that each generation bears responsibility for discovering how eternal truths apply to their particular circumstances.

In that sense, every serious reader of sacred text participates in the midrashic enterprise, turning the text again and again, confident that everything needed for faithful living can indeed be found within it---not through simple literalism, but through the patient, creative work of interpretation that honors both the authority of ancient wisdom and the legitimate needs of contemporary communities.

Notes

Fishbane, Michael. Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel. Clarendon Press, 1985, p. 23.
Book of Jubilees 11:16-17, trans. James C. VanderKam, in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, ed. James H. Charlesworth (New York: Doubleday, 1985), 2:81.
Najman, Hindy. Seconding Sinai: The Development of Mosaic Discourse in Second Temple Judaism. Brill, 2003, p. 78.
Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel, p. 543.
Sifra on Leviticus 22:21, trans. Jacob Neusner, Sifra: An Analytical Translation (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988), 3:145.
Neusner, Jacob. What Is Midrash? Fortress Press, 1987, pp. 67-89.
Kugel, James L. Traditions of the Bible: A Guide to the Bible As It Was at the Start of the Common Era. Harvard University Press, 1998, pp. 15-19.
Winston, David. Philo of Alexandria: The Contemplative Life, The Giants, and Selections. Paulist Press, 1981, pp. 35-42.
Collins, John J. Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Routledge, 1997, pp. 89-108.
Boyarin, Daniel. Border Lines: The Partition of Judaeo-Christianity. University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004, pp. 134-156.
Kugel, Traditions of the Bible, pp. 23-28.
Najman, Seconding Sinai, pp. 115-147.
Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel, pp. 525-543.
Stern, David. Midrash and Theory: Ancient Jewish Exegesis and Contemporary Literary Studies. Northwestern University Press, 1996, pp. 45-78.