Qualitative vs. Quantitative Midrash
I’ll begin with a short midrash on Vayeira, which just passed — I made a longer analysis in this parshablog post. A midrash that relates that Avraham told Sarah to prepare cakes (ugot — וַיֹּ֗אמֶר מַהֲרִ֞י שְׁלֹ֤שׁ סְאִים֙ קֶ֣מַח סֹ֔לֶת ל֖וּשִׁי וַעֲשִׂ֥י עֻגֽוֹת), but then he doesn’t serve it to the angels (וַיִּקַּ֨ח חֶמְאָ֜ה וְחָלָ֗ב וּבֶן־הַבָּקָר֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר עָשָׂ֔ה וַיִּתֵּ֖ן לִפְנֵיהֶ֑ם). It explains that Sarah saw dam niddah so Avraham couldn’t serve the ugot as chullin shenaaseh al taharat hakodesh.
אמר אפרים מקשאה תלמידו של רבי מאיר משמיה דרבי מאיר אברהם אבינו אוכל חולין בטהרה היה ושרה אמנו אותו היום פירסה נדה
Efrayim Miksha’a, disciple of Rabbi Meir, says in the name of Rabbi Meir: Abraham, our forefather, would eat non-sacred food only when he was in a state of ritual purity, i.e., he treated his food as though it were consecrated to God. And Sarah, our foremother, menstruated that day, which rendered the baked goods ritually impure, preventing Abraham from handling them. Therefore, they could not serve bread to their guests.
How does this work with her laughter and surprise at the angels’ words, later, predicting her giving birth? Was this regular or miraculous? Doesn’t the verse explicitly say חָדַל לִהְיוֹת לְשָׂרָה, אֹרַח כַּנָּשִׁים? Also, all details in a midrash come from somewhere, not just pulled out of a hat, so where does this come from?
I would say that these details come from (a) the disappearance of the ugot coupled with (b) Sarah saying אַחֲרֵ֤י בְלֹתִי֙ הָֽיְתָה־לִּ֣י עֶדְנָ֔ה וַֽאדֹנִ֖י זָקֵֽן.
We know that beloti on a literal level comes from the root בלה, worn out. But, from the root בלל, we have the word mixed thoroughly.
There is the famous principle of Rabbi Zeira, as appeared e.g. in Chullin 83b: כדרבי זירא דא"ר זירא כל הראוי לבילה אין בילה מעכבת בו וכל שאינו ראוי לבילה בילה מעכבת בו. This refers to mixing oil into flour. Also, עדן also means period. See Midrash Rabba 48:17 on this, with a prooftext from Yechezkel:
“Sarah laughed to herself, saying: After my languishing, shall I have youth [edna], and my husband is old?” (Genesis 18:12).
“Sarah laughed to herself [bekirba] saying” – this is one of the instances that they emended for King Ptolemy: “Sarah laughed among her relatives [bikroveha].”
“And my husband is old” – a woman, as long as she is young, wears fine jewelry, [while old women do not], but I, even after my languishing, I wear jewelry [edna], as it says: “I decked you with ornaments [edi]” (Ezekiel 16:11). A woman, as long as she is young, has menstrual cycles, [while old women do not,] but I, even after my languishing, I have edna, meaning set times [idanin]. A woman, as long as she is young, has pregnancies [iduyim], [while old women do not,] but I, even after my languishing, I have edna – it is my time. However, “my husband is old” – Rav Yehuda said: He grinds but does not discharge. Rabbi Yehuda ben Rabbi Simon said: The Holy One blessed be He said: ‘Each of you considers yourself young, and your counterpart old, but am I too old to perform miracles?’
So Sarah is voicing her objection and reason for her laughter: For myself, acharei beloti, after a mixed the flour with oil, hayta li edna, I saw dam niddah. However, va’adoni zaken - my husband is yet old.
Generally speaking, most if not all midrashic details come from somewhere, but we just don’t see what the midrashic author saw, so we think otherwise.
Yesterday we began Bava Kamma, and I think that today’s daf (3a) is a conflict between two types of midrash. The first I would call qualitative midrash, where words and phrases are creatively reinterpreted, selecting a non-obvious word sense. Even as we reinterpret, the word sense needs to be there. The second I would call a quantitative midrash, which acts more mechanically. There are a certain number of (somehow known) things to derive, and a certain number of “extra” words or phrases, and we don’t need to establish that the word or phrase can signify this extra thing. I have an admitted preference for the former.
So there is a brayta spanning from Bava Kamma 2b until the top of 3a:
שֵׁן וָרֶגֶל הֵיכָא כְּתִיבִי? דְּתַנְיָא: ״וְשִׁלַּח״ – זֶה הָרֶגֶל, וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״מְשַׁלְּחֵי רֶגֶל הַשּׁוֹר וְהַחֲמוֹר״.
The Gemara asks: Where are Eating and Trampling written in the Torah that led them to be classified as primary categories? The Gemara answers: The source is as the Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states: “If a man causes a field or vineyard to be eaten, and he sends forth his animal, and it consumed in the field of another” (Exodus 22:4). The two parts of the verse are referring to different categories: “And he sends forth,” this is a reference to the primary category of Trampling, as sending forth results in the animal trampling another’s produce and damaging it, and likewise it states: “Happy are you that sow beside all waters that send forth the feet of the ox and the donkey” (Isaiah 32:20). Clearly the term “send forth” is a reference to trampling by the feet of the animal.
״וּבִעֵר״ – זוֹ הַשֵּׁן, וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״כַּאֲשֶׁר יְבַעֵר
“And it consumed,” this is a reference to the primary category of Eating, and likewise it states: “And I will utterly sweep away the house of Jeroboam, as one consumes with
הַגָּלָל עַד תֻּמּוֹ״.
the tooth until it be all gone” (I Kings 14:10).
That is, the pasuk in Mishpatim read (Shemot 22:4) in full:
כִּי יַבְעֶר־אִישׁ שָׂדֶה אוֹ־כֶרֶם וְשִׁלַּח אֶת־בְּעִירֹה וּבִעֵר בִּשְׂדֵה אַחֵר מֵיטַב שָׂדֵהוּ וּמֵיטַב כַּרְמוֹ יְשַׁלֵּם׃ {ס}
When any party who owns livestock lets it loose to graze in another’s land, and so allows a field or a vineyard to be grazed bare, restitution must be made for the impairment of that field or vineyard.
The simple reading of the verse is unclear. Does it talk about fire? But the next verse begins כִּי־תֵצֵא אֵשׁ וּמָצְאָה קֹצִים. So it uses a different sense of the root בער, as consumer, or as livestock. Maybe multiple senses. In my article I posted the other day, I claimed that כִּי יַבְעֶר־אִישׁ שָׂדֶה אוֹ־כֶרֶם means that he wants to clear his field / vineyard after harvesting, so that the stubble does not interfere with further planting.
The midrashic author wants to interpret the somewhat repetitive language, first וְשִׁלַּח אֶת־בְּעִירֹה, then וּבִעֵר בִּשְׂדֵה אַחֵר, as separate avot nezikin. To do this, he shows how the piel shillach is used elsewhere in Tanach associated with livestock to refer to the animals’ legs or feet. And for the second phrase, how does בער refer to eating? There is a pasuk in sefer Melachim (I 14:10) which reads:
לָכֵן הִנְנִי מֵבִיא רָעָה אֶל־בֵּית יָרׇבְעָם וְהִכְרַתִּי לְיָרׇבְעָם מַשְׁתִּין בְּקִיר עָצוּר וְעָזוּב בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל וּבִעַרְתִּי אַחֲרֵי בֵית־יָרׇבְעָם כַּאֲשֶׁר יְבַעֵר הַגָּלָל עַד־תֻּמּוֹ׃
Therefore I will bring disaster upon the House of Jeroboam and will cut off from Jeroboam every male, bond and free, in Israel. I will sweep away the House of Jeroboam utterly, as dung is swept away.
where in כַּאֲשֶׁר יְבַעֵר הַגָּלָל עַד־תֻּמּוֹ some commentators try to say הַגָּלָל refers to teeth, and others say it refers to dung, the end product of being eaten. I’d point to the continuation in the next verse:
הַמֵּת לְיָרׇבְעָם בָּעִיר יֹאכְלוּ הַכְּלָבִים וְהַמֵּת בַּשָּׂדֶה יֹאכְלוּ עוֹף הַשָּׁמָיִם כִּי יְהֹוָה דִּבֵּר׃
Anyone belonging to Jeroboam who dies in the town shall be devoured by dogs; and anyone who dies in the open country shall be eaten by the birds of the air; for GOD has spoken.
which is explicitly about dogs and birds eating, as fulfillment, plus the letters בעיר appears, even though in context it means “in the city” as opposed to “in the field”.
Regardless, the halachic midrashist felt the need to justify the alternate meaning of these words, in his creative reinterpretation, by pointing to Biblical usage.
Contrast this with the approach of the Stamma deGemara:
אָמַר מָר: ״וְשִׁלַּח״ זוֹ הָרֶגֶל, וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״מְשַׁלְּחֵי רֶגֶל הַשּׁוֹר וְהַחֲמוֹר״. טַעְמָא דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״מְשַׁלְּחֵי רֶגֶל הַשּׁוֹר וְהַחֲמוֹר״, הָא לָאו הָכִי – בְּמַאי מוֹקְמַתְּ לַהּ?
The Master said in the baraita just cited: “And he sends forth,” this is a reference to the category of Trampling, and likewise it says: “Happy are you that sow beside all waters that send forth the feet of the ox and the donkey” (Isaiah 32:20). The Gemara infers: The reason that the phrase: “And he sends forth,” is interpreted as a reference to the category of Trampling is that the Merciful One writes: “That send forth the feet of the ox and the donkey.” The Gemara asks: Were it not for this verse, with regard to what would you have interpreted that phrase?
אִי קֶרֶן – כְּתִיב! אִי שֵׁן – כְּתִיב!
If you say that it could have been interpreted as referring to Goring, that cannot be, as Goring is written in a different verse. If you say that it could have been interpreted as referring to Eating, that too cannot be, as Eating is written in a different verse. Perforce the reference is to Trampling, and the baraita had no need to prove this from the phrase: “That send forth the feet.”
אִצְטְרִיךְ; סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי אַשֵּׁן, וְהָא דְּמִכַּלְיָא קַרְנָא, הָא דְּלָא מִכַּלְיָא קַרְנָא; קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
The Gemara answers that it is necessary for the baraita to cite the verse: “That send forth the feet of the ox and the donkey,” as it could enter your mind to say that both this phrase: “And he sends forth,” and that phrase: “And it consumed,” are referring to the primary category of Eating, and that phrase: “And it consumed,” is referring to a case where the object damaged is completely destroyed, and this phrase: “And he sends forth,” is referring to a case where the object damaged is not completely destroyed. Therefore, the verse “that send forth the feet of the ox and the donkey” teaches us that the phrase “and he sends forth,” is referring to Trampling.
The Stamma is somewhat dismissive of the need to even point to a verse where this usage for SH-L-CH occurs. After all, we know that there are three, and apparently only three, targets as it relates to an ox. And we already know it couldn’t be keren, because goring was already covered in a previous verse. The implication being that, had it not been covered, SH-L-CH could somehow otherwise designate keren / horn, even without any verse establishing any such connection or word sense. And eating was already covered. So obviously it must mean the last target!
(This also seems strange to me, because who says it is a closed set? Maybe we could deduce a completely separate damage class, e.g. tzerorot, or the animal digging a pit which someone then falls into. And, without the verses directing our attention here, we would have arrived at a target which does not accord with our decided halacha. They figure out features like “your property; you must watch it; it gets benefit from the damage” and move mechanically through those particular permutations, so that those are the only possible classes.)
The Stamma does the same in attacking B-`-R as Tooth, beginning the analysis with:
אָמַר מָר: ״וּבִעֵר״ זוֹ הַשֵּׁן, וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״כַּאֲשֶׁר יְבַעֵר הַגָּלָל עַד תֻּמּוֹ״. טַעְמָא דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״כַּאֲשֶׁר יְבַעֵר הַגָּלָל עַד תֻּמּוֹ״, הָא לָאו הָכִי – בְּמַאי אוֹקֵימְנָא לַהּ?
The Master said in that baraita: When the verse states: “And it consumed” (Exodus 22:4), this is a reference to the category of Eating. And likewise it states: “And I will utterly sweep away the house of Jeroboam, as one consumes with the tooth until it be all gone” (I Kings 14:10). The Gemara infers: The reason that the phrase “and it consumed” is interpreted as a reference to the category of Eating is that the Merciful One writes: “As one consumes with the tooth until it be all gone.” The Gemara asks: Were it not for this verse, with regard to what case would you have interpreted that phrase?
I should note, however, that there is one place in this analysis where the Stamma does seem to consider the valid word sense / implications of Biblical phrases.
וְלִכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא ״וְשִׁלַּח״, וְלָא בָּעֵי ״וּבִעֵר״; דְּמַשְׁמַע רֶגֶל וּמַשְׁמַע שֵׁן – מַשְׁמַע רֶגֶל, דִּכְתִיב: ״מְשַׁלְּחֵי רֶגֶל הַשּׁוֹר וְהַחֲמוֹר״; וּמַשְׁמַע שֵׁן, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְשֵׁן בְּהֵמֹת אֲשַׁלַּח בָּם״!
The Gemara suggests: And let the Merciful One write only the first phrase, “and he sends forth,” and there would be no need to write the second phrase, “and it consumed,” as the phrase “and he sends forth” connotes Trampling and connotes Eating. It connotes Trampling, as it is written: “That send forth the feet of the ox and the donkey” (Isaiah 32:20), and it connotes Eating, as it is written: “And the teeth of animals I will send forth against them” (Deuteronomy 32:24).
Here, the Stamma suggests that one verse could encompass both Shein and Regel. In order to accomplish this (and perhaps only to accomplish this kind of feat), he needs to appeal to the word sense of SH-L-CH as it appears in Tanach. But otherwise, simple mechanics and counting rule the day. (I guess our pasuk would be shorter, ve’shillach besdei acheir, or veshillach et be’eiro(h) bisdei achier.)
To conclude, I would say that these are two very different midrashic approaches, and the Tannaim didn’t operate the same way as the Savoraim / Stammaim. (Though you’ll even find some earlier mechanical derash.) And, most people’s experience of midrash halacha, even earlier material, has gone through a Stammaic filter, which changes their understanding of the rules of midrashic analysis.