Harmonizing Midrashim
Here’s my article which I intended to put in the Jewish Link for this past Shabbat. But I messed up and didn’t unlock the Google Docs link when sending it to them. Oh, well. Maybe for another week.
Bava Batra 109b-110a presents a midrashic exposition by Rabbi Eleazar (ben Pedat). This third-generation Babylonian Amora was Rav’s student in his youth who moved to the Land of Israel and studied from Sages there, including Rabbi Yochanan. He was a kohen named Eleazar. His midrash perhaps pertains to the Biblical Eleazar HaKohen.
Rabbi Eleazar said: A person should always attach himself to good people. Consider that Moshe married the daughter of Yitro (an idolatrous priest) and had the eventual descendant Yonatan (an idolatrous priest). Meanwhile, his brother married Aminadav’s daughter (see Shemot 6:23), and Pinchas descended from him.
The Talmudic Narrator asks a strong question. Two pesukim later (Shemot 6:25), Eleazar married one of Putiel’s daughters and she bore him Pinchas. Don’t other midrashim assert that Putiel is Yitro’s alias. Both the good and bad exemplar attached themselves to Yitro!
Equating Putiel and Yitro is based on a closed-canon approach, the Law of Conservation of Biblical Personalities. Putiel cannot be a random person not otherwise known from the Biblical canon. Rather, we interpret the name, so it refers to Yitro the priest of Midian (who Rabbi Eleazar already designated a negative influence), who fattened (pittem) calves for idol worship.
The Narrator suggests an alternative etymology. Putiel refers to Yosef, who battled (פִּטְפֵּט) with his evil inclination and prevailed. (A brayta in Sotah 43a makes the Yosef connection.) Then, he rejects this – in a dependent midrash, the Yitro identification was the basis for the tribes mocking Pinchas for his lineage after he killed Zimri, leading Moshe to give his lineage up to Aharon HaKohen.
Therefore, the Narrator offers a harmonization. Putiel refers to both Yosef and Yitro, as his mother’s mother and mother’s father. The words מִבְּנוֹת פּוּטִיאֵל imply two such ancestors. Yonatan was the closer relation to Yitro. This seems quite a kvetch, and see Tosafot who recognize one aspect of the kvetch – in what way is Yonatan then closer than Pinchas? It’s hard to believe that this was Rabbi Eleazar’s midrashic intent.
Can Midrashim Argue?
Must narrative midrashim agree? In the realm of halachic midrash, Sages often argue. The verse says to pay damages with the best of “his” field. Rabbi Akiva says this is the best of the damager’s land; Rabbi Yishmael says it’s of the damagee’s land. No one would say that we must harmonize the two, or take something Rabbi Yishmael said elsewhere to question Rabbi Akiva’s position. They work in separate halachic frameworks.
Even in narrative midrash, Sages argue. Rabbi Akiva: one frog arose and had progeny which spread all over Egypt. Rabbi Eleazar ben Azarya: Rabbi Akiva, don’t quit your day job; stick with halacha. One frog arose and whistled, and other frogs came. Regarding Pharaoh’s daughter finding Moshe, Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Nechemiah argued, one saying she sent forth her arm (amata) and the other that she sent forth her maidservant (amata). This is understood to be a dispute.
Sometimes, harmonization happens. In Gittin 6b, Rabbi Evayatar and Rabbi Yonatan argue about what caused the man in Giv’ah to become angry with his concubine. Rabbi Evayatar encountered Eliyahu HaNavi and asked Hashem’s reaction. Hashem said: Evyatar my son says this and Yonatan my son says that. Rabbi Evayatar: “Chas veshalom, is there doubt before Hashem?” The answer was that both are the words of the living God, in this case, interpreted by the gemara that indeed, both happened. Rabbi Evyatar was cast in an exceptional privileged light for Hashem agreeing with him there.
However, an exception isn’t a general rule of competing narrative midrashim. We don’t regularly say eilu v'eilu for midrashim. Rather, one person may be historically right. In Shemot Rabba 1:29, how did Moshe smite the Egyptian taskmaster? Rabbi Evyatar: with his fist. Others: “he took a mortar rake and removed his brain”. The Sages: he pronounced the Divine Name. These explanations are mutually exclusive.
Who Equates Putiel and Yitro?
Yes, other midrashim equate Putiel and Yitro. Thus, Sanhedrin 82b contains the midrash about the tribes mocking Pinechas after he kills Zimri. This is the primary sugya, since it’s an unchallenged main text, part of a running Pinchas / Zimri epic tale. In Bava Batra / Sota, the midrash appears only as a challenge to the Yosef identification.
In Sanhedrin’s running tale, the preceding attribution is to our very Rabbi Eleazar! He interprets וַיְפַלֵּ֑ל in Tehillim instead of vayitpalel, that it is as if Pinchas wrought judgment with his Creator. This would be perfect for our sugya, as we’d have an internal Rabbi Eleazar inconsistency. However, the particular Yitro statement is anonymous, and the sugya weaves together the midrashim from various Amoraim – Rav, Shmuel, Rabbi Yochanan, Rav Nachman, and others. We shouldn’t ascribe this to Rabbi Eleazar.
This midrash appears unattributed in Midrash Tanchuma. In Vayikra Rabba 33, the Israelites criticize his lineage in reaction to Pinchas approaching them to establish their own lineage. The three Amoraim relating this midrash do so in Rabbi Chiyya bar Abba’s name. He is a third-generation Amora of the Land of Israel, who was also a kohen. This seems to be a dispute between contemporaries.
The Midrash Says
I grew up reading The Midrash Says, a wonderful English sefer set that presents the Biblical narrative through the lens of midrashim. It’s a great way of familiarizing oneself with many classic midrashim. In the preface, the author (Rabbi Moshe Weissman) notes that he cannot simply repeat the myriads of midrashim. Instead, he employs selection criteria such as midrashim which advance ideas such as midda keneged midda, then weaves together these midrashim into a flowing narrative. He gives all his sources in footnotes on the page.
I’ve often been asked about inconsistencies in the book, and I answer that the book itself answers it, via the footnotes. One midrash is from Sanhedrin while the other is from Midrash Tanchuma. Midrashic authors may operate on different assumptions. Still, the woven narrative is thereby misleading.
I’ll give an example which The Midrash Says itself buys into – Shlomit bat Dibri was tricked into sleeping with the Egyptian taskmaster, thinking it was her husband Datan (Shemot Rabba). To cover up the crime, the taskmaster beat Datan until Moshe intervened (Midrash HaGadol). The next day, Datan quarreled with his brother-in-law, Aviram. Datan now planned to divorce his wife, and her brother Aviram objected (Yalkut Shimoni). Therefore, Datan raised his hand to strike his brother-in-law (Devarim Rabba). The disparate citations I provided are partial.
The problem with this woven narrative isn’t an internal midrashic consistency, per se, but with explicit pesukim. Bemidbar 16:1 describes Datan and Aviram as “the sons of Eliav” of the tribe of Reuven. How were these brothers actually brothers-in-law? Did Datan marry his sister? Vayikra 24:1 describes Shlomit bat Dibri as of the tribe of Dan, so how is she the Reuvenite Aviram’s sister? People propose forced answers, in which she was a half-sister, a daughter with a different wife of Eliav, and this preceded matan Torah. Still, it’s weird to describe just Aviram as her brother and the two as brothers-in-law rather than brothers.
The answer is really that midrashim were woven together. Identifying Shlomit bat Dibri with this tricked woman is a separate midrash from elsewhere. Yalkut Shimoni Shemot Remez 166 doesn’t identify the woman or her husband. The anonymous husband directly appeals to Moshe, telling him a different tale than above– the Egyptian had tied him up and raped his wife, and now sought to kill him. Moshe intervenes. After returning home, the man wishes to divorce his wife because of the incident, the anonymous wife tells her brother, and the anonymous brother seeks to kill his brother-in-law (a reversal from Datan).
Meanwhile, Yalkut Shimoni Remez 167:1, starts afresh and identifies the Egyptian (אחד מנוגשי פרעה) and the Hebrew, with new information (אחד מבני הקהתי הלוים שהן אחיו). He’s a Levite, thus not Datan! The next day, the fighting Israelite is Datan. Remez 167:8 is a new start, in which Datan and Aviram contend. Note that Yalkut Shimoni is a “Yalkut”, a collection of different midrashim from different authors. Combining aspects from different sections yields ridiculous conclusions like Datan and Aviram as brothers-in-law.
Now, the Talmudic Narrator may often adopt this harmonizing approach, in both midrash halacha and midrash aggada. However, we should realize that this isn’t necessarily the intent of the named Tannaim and Amoraim. We should consider the Talmudic layers and understand each scholastic generation’s statements on their own terms.