Understanding the Mashal
(The Midrashic Parable)
Our exploration of the interpretive midrash begins with the mashal1The word mashal is also used by Hazal to refer to uses of figurative language. genre for two reasons. First, the mashal is the most obviously interpretive type of midrash; by its very nature it requires the reader to compare and contrast texts. Second, determining the structure of the mashal is usually straightforward. This makes it easier to analyze than the midrashic story.
A mashal is generally made up of two parts, though many meshalim2This is the plural form of mashal. contain other elements as well. The only indispensable part of the mashal-type midrash is the mashal itself, which is introduced by phrases like, “le-ma hadavar domeh,” (to what may this thing be compared?) or “mashal le…” (this may be compared to…). A midrash of the mashal type usually also contains a nimshal (explanation of the mashal), introduced by the word “kakh” (thus). Often the nimshal is considerably less detailed than the mashal and in some cases there is no nimshal, but most midrashim of the mashal genre are made up of at least these two parts at a minimum.
In reading a mashal, as in the reading of any midrash, we need to be guided by a question characteristic of Hazal. The formulation of the question is typically succinct and goes to the heart of the matter: “Lama li?” (Why do I need this word, verse, statement, phrase?) The use of a mashal as commentary on a biblical text sparks the question, “What does the mashal add to my understanding of the text, and what would be missing if I read the text without the aid of this mashal?”
Another guiding principle in the analysis of the mashal is that meshalim are revealing not primarily because of the similarities they demonstrate but, more critically, because of the differences they highlight. The message of a mashal is thus often found in the discrepancies between mashal and nimshal, mashal and biblical text, or the mashal element and other parts of the same midrash.3I am indebted to Professor Yona Fraenkel for this insight. I had the pleasure of studying with Professor Fraenkel during the course of a two-year sabbatical with the Jerusalem Fellows and benefited greatly from his lectures and writings.
Professor Fraenkel’s influence finds expression in two critical elements of my approach to midrash: (1) the structural approach, demonstrated throughout the book and (2) the guiding concept that the message of a mashal is often found in the discrepancies between mashal and nimshal, or mashal and biblical text.
Having said this, I must, however, point out that he would probably disapprove of my application of his methodology. Professor Fraenkel strongly opposes the idea that midrash is in any way interpretive. In addition, I do not do the kind of text-critical reconstruction and comparison of manuscripts that he considers so central to an academically valid approach to the text.
For a thorough introduction to Professor Fraenkel’s work, see his Darkhei ha’agada vehamidrash (Yad Latalmud) 1991, Israel.
In this respect, a mashal is like a metaphor or a simile. A metaphor is thought provoking because its comparison of two things reveals differences between them; the parallels drawn by the metaphor are only partial or superficial. For example, to say that God may be compared to a king expresses an almost banal truth if the intent is merely to indicate power, a quality shared by God and human kings. At the same time, our awareness that no earthly king – however powerful – can approach the greatness of God, sensitizes us to the inadequacy of the comparison and highlights our understanding of God’s greatness, at least in some measure.
In analyzing a mashal, the reader should bear in mind that all parables, by nature, break down if taken too far. The above example of the God/king comparison illustrates the dangers of trying to push the likeness in a mashal beyond its intended bounds. After all, if we say that God is really like a human king, we have missed the point of the metaphor. We must also remain aware, though, that the breakdown in a mashal is often part of an interpretive strategy. As we have noted, the message of the midrash frequently resides in the intentionally planted discrepancies between its various parts. Otherwise, as Hazal say, “Lama li?”
The midrashim that follow in this section illustrate the properties of mashal-type midrashim in a variety of ways. The first example, from Midrash Tanhuma, introduces a step-by-step, systematic approach to the reading of meshalim used throughout this book. I have found this approach a useful tool in my own study of midrashim of this type, but it is by no means the only way to read any given mashal. The method outlined here, like any interpretive approach, also has its pitfalls. Just as a midrash may be misunderstood by “under-reading” it, one can fail to get at the meaning of a midrash by “over-reading” it, finding discrepancies or problems where none exist. That said, the method has one distinct advantage – it forces us to slow down and think about what the midrash is saying. Wealth and depth of meaning await the careful reader.