Introduction to the Aggadot

The early and later authors have written extensively on this point, providing sufficient defense for the words of our Sages original: "חז"ל" — Sages of blessed memory in their methods of derash homiletical interpretation. For it is unthinkable that these Tannaim early Rabbinic sages would remove scriptural verses from their peshat literal meaning. They surely knew the great rule in the Torah that a verse does not depart from its literal meaning. As they stated in the Talmud (Gittin 7a): "Do we not know that the Baraita extra-Mishnaic teaching exists? But these matters are explained according to the logic of the speaker."

Regarding the saying: "Whoever harbors jealousy against his fellow and remains silent, the Witness will execute judgment," this is a profound moral lesson for a person not to harbor bitterness for too long. He should expect the Holy One, blessed be He, to avenge his grievance. They linked this to a verse even though it is a distant connection, yet due to the prohibition of the written word and the oral tradition, they sought distant supports for the Holy Scriptures. Even those moral proverbs—which were merely common conversation among the people, known to them through the experience of events that occur always in the world, such as those popular sayings mentioned in our Talmud (Sanhedrin 7b, Bava Kamma 92a)—they sought to bring evidence from Scripture and link them to the Holy writings.

Furthermore, it was accepted among our Sages that whenever they could increase the praise of the righteous and turn the scale of the balance in their favor, they would always do so, striving to justify the righteous in every possible way. For this reason, our Sages said, "Whoever says David sinned is merely mistaken" (cf. Shabbat 56a, Bava Kamma 71a). They also said, "David was not fit for that act; it only came to teach repentance to sinners" (Avodah Zarah 4a). Thus, even where it is explicitly clear to the eye of the sun in Scripture, their advice in the ways of derash was to justify their actions and minimize blame. How much more so did they strive regarding their good deeds, which are explicit, laboring in the ways of derash to show that their deeds surpassed what is written in the Holy Scriptures through various supports and revealed homiletical methods.

See Genesis Rabbah, end of chapter 34, where a certain sage interpreted what is stated: "Abraham was circumcised" (Gen. 17:26), and it is not written "Abraham circumcised." From here, he found himself circumcised automatically. Rabbi Berachiah explicitly stated that Rabbi Abba mocked Rabbi Levi. He said to him: "You are a liar and a falsifier! Rather, he felt the pain so that the Holy One, blessed be He, would multiply his reward." Through this, our Sages taught us that we must interpret the good actions of the righteous in the best and most perfected light. Because of this, in his homilies, Rabbi Levi implied that Abraham did not suffer from the commandment but found himself circumcised—now there is no merit in his action. This is not correct in the ways of derash. Because of this, Rabbi Abba mocked Rabbi Levi, saying to him, "You are a liar and a falsifier," for according to the ways of derash, the duty is to praise and magnify the actions of the righteous with greater intensity. Because of this, he interpreted it to mean that he suffered greatly, and he did this out of love, accepting the suffering upon himself to fulfill the commandment of the Almighty. The small book on the Aggadot by the distinguished Rabbi Moses Chaim Luzzatto (Ramchal), may his memory be a blessing, was awakened by these words of the Midrash to prove that in the ways of derash, the duty is to interpret the good deeds of the righteous in praise, in every way possible.

However, regarding the deeds of the wicked, they had a great rule: to attribute to them every possible abomination, as they interpreted (Sanhedrin 44b) that Achan desecrated the Sabbath and slept with a betrothed maiden, and so on. Similarly, they interpreted regarding Esau: "And Esau came from the field" (Gen. 25:29)—this teaches that he slept with a betrothed maiden, committed murder, denied the fundamental belief in the resurrection of the dead, and despised the birthright (Bava Batra 16a). They said about Ahaz that he slept with his mother and sacrificed on the altar (Sanhedrin 103b). About Balaam, they said he slept with his donkey. In particular, they magnified the sin in every place to tell of the abominations of the wicked: that they slept with a betrothed maiden on Yom Kippur (Bava Metzia 83b). They also said about Elisha that he saw a person conceive on Yom Kippur (Sotah 47a), and in the Jerusalem Talmud, chapter 2 of Chagigah, regarding Elisha ben Abuyah, that he rode a horse on Yom Kippur that fell on the Sabbath.

Our Sages (in Sanhedrin, chapter Chelek) gave us a rule: do not interpret the midrash in a derogatory way. For regarding Balaam the wicked, the more you praise him, do not interpret in a derogatory way more than what is explicit in the text, except for Balaam the wicked. Everything you can find by way of derash to show that he increased in evil and acted in abominations—it is permitted and even a commandment to interpret and publish publicly, because a wicked man of the lowest degree, like Balaam, is capable of committing every sin. Therefore, it is not strange in the Sages' interpretations that Balaam slept with his donkey.

Now, the Rabbi who wrote the Ein Yaakov in the first chapter of Berakhot loaded strange intentions onto this Aggadah. For in the Talmud, they learned through a gezerah shavah analogy of equal words: it is said here "I have become a sochenet companion/nurturer" (1 Kings 1:2), and it is said regarding Abishag, "And she shall be a sochenet to him." In truth, regarding Abishag, it is explained in Scripture, "And the king knew her not" (1 Kings 1:4). If so, the gezerah shavah is refuted. However, according to the rule that the masters of Aggadah had—to interpret Balaam disparagingly in any way mentioned—here too they imputed this abomination upon him, and they agreed on this matter by way of allusion and a distant support to the text, as is their constant custom.

See also what Maimonides wrote in his Commentary on the Mishnah, chapter 5 of Avot, on what was said in the Mishnah: "The disciples of Balaam [possess] an evil eye, a haughty spirit, and a greedy soul." He wrote that it is clear that a man who has already corrupted his deeds so much that he had the power to incite the daughters of Midian to abandon themselves to immorality—he is undoubtedly capable of committing all possible abominations. Further, the words of the Jerusalem Talmud (Sanhedrin, chapter Chelek) seem appropriate: Rabbi Levi was performing a derash on this verse: "Because of [Ahab] who sold himself to do evil in the eyes of the Lord" (1 Kings 21:20). For six months he interpreted it disparagingly, until he came to the high heavens. He said to Him: "What did he sin against You, and what did he offend before You?" He returned to interpret it for six months in praise: "Only there was none like Ahab, whom Jezebel his wife enticed." We see that the essence depends on the hand of the interpreter. At first, he interpreted all the deeds of Ahab disparagingly and attributed to him all the possible wickedness he could insert into this verse by way of allusions and supports, and finally, he returned to interpret it in praise and justified him, for even those explicit sins he did not commit of his own volition, but through the enticement of Jezebel his wife. From here, I give license to all such interpretations that everything depends on the derash, and there was nothing handed down by tradition regarding these matters.

The reason that motivated our Sages in such interpretations is that they set their focus and gaze to uphold for the people the great principle that our Sages, the masters of the Mishna, established: "One commandment leads to another, and one sin leads to another." Therefore, the Sages imposed an obligation on the interpreter in public assemblies to verify this principle in every possible way and to teach the people that a person who walks in the way of the Torah—it becomes a second nature to him, to the point that it is easy for him to perform all good deeds, and nothing will be preferred over it. If at any time we find that they performed bad actions, we must strive to show through the ways of derash that their deeds and actions were for the good, so that there was no...

They relied on what they said: "God has spoken once; twice have I heard this" (Ps. 62:12), and they interpreted that one verse yields many meanings. The school of Rabbi Ishmael taught: "And like a hammer that shatters the rock" (Jer. 23:29)—just as a hammer splits into many sparks, so too does one verse divide into many meanings (Sanhedrin 34a). They also said in the first chapter of Ta'anit: "Jacob our father did not die. But they embalmed him and eulogized him? I interpret it as a verse." Their intention is that the Torah was given to the sages to interpret in every way that seems appropriate to them, so that they can accomplish their intent and lead to the goal required of them, to act upon the heart of the masses. One can increase meanings for a verse, to interpret and explain it in different ways, by way of derash, and receive reward. All of this was because of the power of the beginning—so that it would be supported by Scripture and preserved in the power of memory. Our Sages explicitly commanded us on this matter, saying: "The Torah is only acquired through signs; make marks for yourself for the Torah" (Eruvin 54b). See also Eruvin 21b: "The more the sage was sharp, the more he taught the people knowledge and taught it through signs." Rashi explained: "He established for it a tradition and signs, both in the words of the scripture and in the version of the Mishna." See also Shabbat 114a: "Make signs in the Torah and acquire it."

...sin or guilt. For in the case of David with Bathsheba, our Sages said that everyone who went out to the wars of the house of David wrote a bill of divorce for his wife. Thus, regarding the sin of David, they searched for the merit that in his essence, he did not sin at all, only that he did not protest on the day, etc. So too with the deeds of Reuben and the sons of Eli and others; thus, it was turned for the better through their merit.

On the other hand, one must learn a significant lesson: as soon as a person deviates from the way of the Torah, even a slight deviation, he subsequently needs strengthening and extra warning because the thought has already become entangled for him, and one sin will lead to another. He is already capable of committing all abominations if he does not stand up for his soul to blemish the counter-inclination within him, which has completed its matter of prohibitions. The paved way to teach the people and show them the way they should go is to take matters only from the events that occurred in the early generations, as it is said: "Remember the days of old, understand the years of generation after generation." By observing the deeds and conduct of previous generations, we learn and understand that every good trait a person begins to adopt will take root below, until all fruits that a person turns toward afterwards over the days are only for its benefit. Not so a person who strays to evil, who—even if at first he did not deviate much from the straight path—subsequently, in the passage of days, will be dragged into greater sins because it has become ingrained for him as a habit and a permanent nature. It is difficult for such a person to leave his path and conduct. Therefore, extra warning is needed at the beginning so that there is no deviation in doing evil and it is not established for him as a custom.

Regarding the responsa of Lekhicha book 157, which was raised on all this which we gave above, he writes: "After we have seen that it is the way of the Sages to obscure the wicked, to darken him for the scale of guilt, as they said 'his face turned,' etc., and 'he came to his mother and struck him, he is disqualified' (Pesachim 84a)—also regarding Zebulun, they increased in telling of his disgrace—so too is their way to justify the righteous and turn him toward merit. This is the evidence from all those that our Sages said did not sin, even though the literal meaning of the text proves that they did sin, etc." This is the measure of his words (the author of Yad): that David said to Abishai, "You have enticed me," and he was a righteous man, and he sought an approach to interpret it for good. And where he saw from the literal meaning that he was a liar and a falsifier and a wicked man, they interpreted it disparagingly so that they would not want to commit a great sin with Abishai, who was a married woman, and the literal meaning of the text does not point to disgrace. Similarly with Joseph, who was righteous and the text testified that he did not listen to her enticements; and how did our Sages interpret (Sotah 36b) "And Joseph went in to do his work" (Gen. 39:11)—his work literally, only that he sought himself and did not find. So too our Sages interpreted in Yalkut Melachim that the wicked woman said to Elijah the prophet, "You have come to me to bring my sin to remembrance." Our Sages said: "Heaven forbid! It is not so, for the Most High is dear to me, and what is for the head is for the Lord." My opinion is to refine them toward the scale of merit, that there is no meaning for evil. What benefit is there in this, to interpret about people as such wicked ones, and what moved their heart to tell about the kings of Israel, who had in every place to judge the deeds of the righteous toward merit? End quote of the questioner.

I have found further what they interpreted: "David came to the head" original: "דוד בא עד הראס" — a reference to David's supposed desire for idol worship.—this teaches that he sought to perform idol worship (Sanhedrin 107a). Note: Behold, the distinguished Rabbi in his annotations to the Holy Scriptures addresses the questioner's difficulty, stating that even in these places, the Sages' intention regarding the actions of the righteous was for the good, to analyze the deeds of the righteous and show that the words of the Sages are true, according to the principle they established: whoever is greater than his neighbor, his evil inclination is greater than him. David's inclination overcame him so much that he wanted to commit adultery, but he did not come to the act and became a master and ruler over his inclination. Also, because of the troubles and afflictions that came upon David, he was close to extinguishing the candle (which is between him and his Creator) through idol worship, and they said he sought to perform idol worship. Or it can be explained as they said (Bava Kamma 100a): it was an event where he was winnowing for himself, but not total idol worship. So too with Joseph, his thought was already toward evil, but he did not merit to do his work literally, and yet he overcame his inclination and did not sin. This is a much greater level, for if the inclination had not been aroused in him because of the change of the servant, that is fine, but it does not give praise to the master. Then the action of Joseph would not be worthy of such glorification. But now that the inclination had already overcome him, and yet he was master and ruler over his actions, this is a great thing that our Sages chose to praise the deed of Joseph the righteous, for everything was already prepared for evil. How great is his power through his labors by which he conquered his inclination, for there is no thought of evil counted for an act here. Only among Israel is a bad thought not joined to an act, as is stated in the Jerusalem Talmud, first chapter of Pe'ah. This is a wonderful story to distinguish the status of the righteous, for no sin shall befall them. In the way we mentioned above, the derash must show that Abraham was not circumcised by himself, but suffered severe pains then and stood in the test. In the matter of Elisha, they had a special intention in this derash, which is that the woman said the child was awakened upon her for he came to her in intercourse. Yet she believed that he was a holy man of God and did not doubt his level, and did not refrain from asking him to pray in supplication to God for her son, etc.

So too Samuel the questioner there in the additions of Ralb"ach further mentions things we find in the Aggadot that should not be said, let alone praised, such as the matter of Abner from the fourth chapter of Yochanan (Bava Metzia 84a). It is not appropriate for perfect people to speak anything but decent things. I have commanded to maintain them by way of these. What benefit is there to diminish these Aggadot, which not only do not lead to love or fear, but the opposite is true? For our Sages said: "Whoever mocks... even if a decree of seventy years of good was sealed for him, it is overturned for him to evil" (Shabbat 33a). What else can we do about that Aggadah which appears even more so at first glance to be a disparaging Aggadah (Shabbat 109b, Sanhedrin 82b)? What need was there for them to be brought by the students in the Talmud, etc., that the world does not lack? In truth, the Geonim have already labored to resolve this, and the Gaon Maharal of Prague in his book Be'er HaGolah also labored on this to show that the words of the Sages are upright and correct. It is also possible to say that they wanted to show that even though there were many sages and healthy in the perfection of health, their soul did not lack when they stood against the temptations of the inclination, and they were able to overcome it. Moreover, some of them who were famous for their beauty stood at the gates of the ritual bath, and the women were confused by them like white pumpkins (Berakhot 20a). This also is great praise for the students of Torah who put themselves in danger and emerged in peace without obstacle or injury.

Without the reason we prefaced above—that they had a fundamental principle in the ways of derash to praise the deeds of the righteous in every matter and also to disparage the wicked in every possible way—it was also of the ways of derash practiced by them to insert different people under one name, if they found they were similar in some trait of the soul and in the merit of the action, or if they found some actions of two people that are similar to each other, or there is a close similarity in names between different people. Then it was easy for them to make of these two one person, as we saw (Megillah 13a) that Malachi is Ezra, as is explained in the Tanna because he was a master of a foreign wife, and in Ezra it is written, "We have trespassed against God and have taken foreign wives." They also said there that Helech is Daniel, because Helech was enslaved, he is Daniel, etc. They also said: he is Cyrus, he is Darius, he is Artaxerxes (Rosh Hashanah 3a), and the Tosafot there says he is the twentieth year. They further said his name is Kiyon, he is Erad, he is Canaan, and they said (Pesachim 54a) he is Anah, he is Enah, he is Amram—this teaches that Zibeon came upon his mother. You will also find in the Midrash, chapter Vayeshev, regarding the verse "And his name was Hiram." The Sages say he is Chira, he is Hiram king of Tyre, and he was close to one thousand two hundred years, etc. See Jerusalem Talmud, Sotah, end of chapter "Just as," that Rabbi Akiva interpreted that he is Balaam, he is Elihu ben Barachel, etc. See also in the book Me'or Einayim, chapter 8, which collected all these statements in which the Sages mixed up different people under the name of one person known and famous for piety or wickedness. I will add some more, such as Haman (Megillah 12b). They further interpreted: he is the serpent, he is Sheba ben Bichri.