Between Pshat and Midrash | Rabbi Shmuel Goldin | September 9th 2025

as opposed to just going through the text. That's by popular request. But the first few um the first few sessions will be sort of introductory in nature, particularly this one between Pant and Medish. What is wrong with the way we teach Torah text? And this is something I I know you've heard from me before that I feel very strongly about. I feel that the way we teach our children text is is just problematic and I'll explain what I mean as we go through the uh the texts in front of us. The first text is a a section of the Rambam. It's from his introduction to a portion of the Talmud Sanhedrin. And this section known as kale basically has a great number of very difficult medrash very very difficult to understand and to try to to contemplate what they're saying and it is here that the Rambam basically turns to us and says I want you to understand how I think medash is supposed to be approached and he says there are three groups of people he says the first group. I have they are very many in number in this first group from what I've seen and what I've experienced and what I've heard. They are basically people who see medish and understand it understand it as it is basically and they don't look for anything further than the actual text and the problem is he says that with this group is that ultimately they find medish to be not understandable. and and negative. They basically say the rabbis are fantasizing and therefore this particular group falls into a trap and is unable to really understand the beauty of Medish Haken. The second group he says this is a group that is also plentiful. He says there are many of those that are that are in this group. They take Medish literally which leads to absurdities. He says basically basically they they take Medish literally. they don't necessarily uh understand the what the text is really saying and therefore they they see the shot of the medish and that's what they take and and therefore they will fall astray as well and finally he says the third group the third group and he bemons this fact he says the third group isn't as many it's it's I've only met a few people who really do this he says the third group is the group that understands that med is to be understood on multiple levels. That the surface level of a medrash is not what the rabbis want you to accept. What they want you to accept, he says, is that which is underneath that which motivates the story and what is the lesson that they are trying to teach. That is how you are meant to understand Medish. And he says this is the group that I find myself in. This is the group that I wish there were more of and this is the way medish must be understood. Now I'm sharing this with you because as I've said I believe we fail to teach medish properly and we fail to teach shot properly. What happens in our schools generally is and in many of our teachings is right off the bat as soon as we start we move to medish and we teach medish as if it's text and if you talk to children learning in school today and you talk to them for example about the story of Yoseph and his brothers they'll tell you that the brothers made a bezdon and they made a bezden and they checked him and they and that's how what happened and they you know they they they went through a process And it they're saying this as if it's written in the text and it's not. So much of what they quote is simply not in the simply not there. And because of that they fail to understand medish and fail to understand phat and phat really has a lot to say. Pot is beautiful and too often they don't even learn the shot. Yes. Yes, you're going to discuss the role of Rashi because Rashi really crowned. >> Okay. >> Rashi, >> right? Okay. So, we'll talk >> that's a excellent point. Excellent point. Rashi, it's very interesting. Rashi tries to stick to the text but when he but periodically when he finds himself stuck he will go to medish and as if it's you know as if it's the way to learn his grandson the rashbam who I've told you is my favorite classical commentary because he believes in parabat says that his grandfather said at the end of his life that if he would have written the again he would stayed closer to Pashhat. So, but it is it's true. We'll see in a a couple of cases here where Rashi does go to medish and it is un I understand it because he has trouble finding a way to approach the shot. All right. Now, we're going to take a look at a number of examples of medish and we'll try to understand both the medish and the phat. The first example actually is an example that for me was very telling because it I I dealt with it in Yeshua University when I was teaching uh a class I taught classes there in Kumash and I had I was in the JSS program which that's what it was called then which is a program for people from a not a strong background that and sort of an outreach program but it was also for failed Yeshua students who somehow didn't didn't want to go mainstream and wanted to to take the easy route and we were dealing with parases appropriately and I got to the point where we were dealing with the fourth day and the creation of the luminaries in the heavens. So if you take a look on the second page, you find that there is a problematic sentence in in the text. God created the two great luminaries. The great luminary to rule during the day, the lesser luminary to learn during the rule during the night and the stars. So the question is there's it's super there's why doesn't it simply say and God created the great luminary and the small luminary. Why does it say the two great luminaries? So I turned to my students and I said, "What do you think?" Hands went up. Well, we know. We know the answer. The answer is the moon and the sun were the same size and the moon complained. And because the moon complained, therefore, God caused the moon to be diminished. And that is why it says two great luminaries. I said to them, okay, stop. I said to them, how many of you think or believe that the moon can talk? I said, and this was a more important question. How many of you believe that in order to be an observant Jew, you have to believe the moon can talk? Right? Because that's what we're teaching our kids. And they they were they were a gasast. I mean, this is what they had learned. This is what they were told. I was attacking a a basic understanding of the text from their perspective. But I said to them then, I want you to understand we're dealing with this in the safety of a yeshiva university classroom. If you are, and this was before all the trouble on campus, if you on a campus of another college and someone came up to you and quoted this madish and said, "Do you really believe that?" you would be hardpressed to to to respond. You would say, "Yeah, I guess I do. I don't know." So, we're we're demanding a belief in things even more than the things that that have to be believed and and creating a real problem. Now, how is this to be understood? So, let's start with the medish. The medish obviously is teaching a lesson. What is a lesson? The lesson is that jealousy at least on the surface there are other lessons as well. But the lesson is that jealousy is wrong. One whose jealous is eventually diminished. And therefore the rabbis seeing this textual um this textual problem basically turn and say we're going to take that lesson and we're going to attach it to the text and we're going to teach it so that it will be learned and carried down across the ages in a story sort of form. They are not demanding that we believe the moon can talk. They're not. Now what's pushupshot? Pab shot actually is very appropriate particularly this week and I'll tell you why. Pant Sha was driven home to me in a book by a man by the name of Azar last name I forget the first name where he wrote about science and and brait he said you know the moon and the sun as viewed from earth are of the same circumference in other words they are sure one's brighter than the other but they are of the same circumference How do I know that? Because I can have a solar eclipse. I can have the moon blocking the sun's rays. And therefore, isn't it miraculous? Isn't it miraculous that these two bodies which are so vastly different and one so much greater than the other have been put in the heavens just so when we look at them they are of the same circumference. the two great luminaries which on some level are equivalent the great luminary and the small luminary now again I believe that's parash it's beautiful it's beautiful and it's something that is missed when we immediately go to the med let's go to the next one the next one is really very interesting and it's also very a couple of the med Russian we're going to learn today are unfortunately appropriate for our time viol we're we're now we're traveling now to the interchange between cayenne and he that leads to the murder of he and here we have a very very difficult puk in the Torah puk says Cen said to his brother and it was when they were in the field rose up against his brother and killed him. What's missing? >> What did he say? Right. It's not there. Now, it would be a It would be less of a problem if it would have said in heaven. So you'd say that they but nowhere in the text does it say vom he said without telling you what it said. It's it's absent. It's not there. So immediately the ram the kazal rush in to fill in the gap and they they they suggest some things that seem fantastical. Take a look. The first s there are three suggestions that are made. The first suggestion raid they said basically cayenne and he said let's divide up give we're the only ones here let's divide up the world right you'll have h part of well you'll I'll have part of the world and the division say the rabbis that they suggested was actually along the lines of a division that exists throughout out which is metalin and ka right land and movables. So, one of them said, "Okay, I'll take the land." And the other one said, "Okay, I'll take the movables." Then one of them turned to the other and said, "Okay, get off my land." And the other one said, "Give me back my shirt." And they began to fight and struggle. And Cayenne kills Seville. That's suggestion number one. Suggestion number two. Suggestion number two is on the next page. And says, "What were they arguing about?" No, they were smarter than than than we had in the first one. They were they divided land and movables. But what then did they argue about? In whose land would the BA mikdash be built? All right. Now, it's getting kind of fantastical here, right? I mean, basic is centuries to come. It's not not here, but but that's the suggestion. They argued and Cayenne kills Heaven. And finally, you have the third suggestion. The third suggestion is that they argued about a woman that basically there was an extra twin that was born with with Cayenne in heaven, whatever. And and there they they were arguing they they were arguing about a woman. Now, stop. What's going on? What are the rabbis telling me? And why do they why did they come up with these three seemingly unbelievable explanations, right? They're arguing about uh kaka and metal. They're argue it gets gets harder as we go. They're arguing about the bas. Come on now. Along comes Nama Lewitz. She's such a a masterful teacher and she says, "Take a look at this medish and look at it carefully. across time. What have we killed each other for? We've killed each other for possession. We've killed each other for religion. And we've killed each other for passion. And therefore, what the medish is saying is we don't know what Cen said to he, but it had to be one of these three things because that's what people fight about. And if you understand the medish as he she suggests it's it's a powerful and very sad medish because what it's saying is we have not moved one inch off the killing field since the time of cayenne. You know when when the 1900s began everybody was saying or a lot of people were saying it's a new era new era. We've made tremendous scientific strides, tremendous uh strides in industry. This era, this century is going to be an era of peace and harmony, right? Ended up being the most bloodthirsty era in in in history. We haven't moved off the killing field. And that's frightening to us. And that's and that's what that medish is suggesting. Why nevertheless did the Torah as heard by >> Okay, now we get to push. All right, that's good. That's the mish. All right, he said, but why does the total leave out what he said? All right, so I'll throw it out to you. What do you think the answer might be? >> Because it doesn't matter what he said. It doesn't matter. What the Torah is telling us is through omission. It's brilliant. There is no possible excuse for what happened yesterday on the bus. I don't care what your China is. I even use this manduk. I remember when I spoke to my sh in the aftermath of 911 and I said to them, "What's the Torah teaching us?" that no matter what your Tina may be and maybe maybe Cayenne had a valid maybe he was lording it over him because God accepted his sacrifice and Cen was was who knows but whatever what it was doesn't matter what matters is what he did and there's no excuse for what he did and therefore we're going to tell you vom we're going to tell you he said something he had a China and we're going to leave it out so here's a Perfect example. I wish all medashi were and and pashab shot were as beautiful as this one because it really fits perfectly both the medish and the shot. Yes. >> On the first one maybe loud grandfather. >> Okay. >> I don't know. Is that you saying so can you say does anybody I don't know where my father got this from that the two liner >> are just different. You could say the when you're young, you want your values of your parents to be reflected. And then get older, you want to be like the son, you want to stand alone. You want to be >> I've heard that. It's a beautiful. It's a beautiful because we say it's referring to the child now who's like the moon should somehow become like the sun. It's very pretty. Very pretty. Is it is it pos? No. But it's very pretty and and and and it's snow and it's >> shock but the thing that that which is reflected is not as powerful but they're both luminary, >> right? But it's not explaining why the text says the two great luminaries, the large and the small. Why are they both great lumin? Why is it that extra? >> All right. Good. >> Okay. Could be. Could be. All right. You're you're making a good case. You're making a good case. All right. Now I want to go to a couple of other a couple of other very very small examples and then to a >> kind as we said that it doesn't matter what he said that the Torah deliberately leaves out the substance of what he said because the Torah is teaching us that it >> in right that it doesn't matter what he said no matter what he said no matter what his tina was there's no excuse for what happened. Okay? And and the Torah couldn't have told us that in in in a better way. In other words, this is it's so brilliant because what the Torah does is Torah says they he said something there was a time, but we're not going to tell you what it is because it doesn't matter. >> Yeah. Possession, religion, what's the one? >> Passion. >> Women. Women. >> Passion. Passion. >> Yes. All right. One more question then we'll move on. Yes. I am not aware of any other case in the Torah where the Torah says vy and does not tell you what was said. This is the only case that I'm aware of. There may be well but I'm not aware of it. Okay. Now let's go to to a couple of others that I think are are again important for us as well. Um let's take a look at Lot and Avam as they travel together. So again we'll see that this is unfortunately very very appropriate for the time Vir Lo and and and Araham and their shepherds and their cattle are all traveling together. And the Torah says there was a fight. There was a fight between the shepherds of Lot and the shepherds of Abraham and theanim and the pim then were living in the land. Now what's what what does what's the right what does this have to do with the Brooklyn Bridge? In other words, what's the association with the of the second half of the sentence with the first? So Rashi quotes a medish which may be close to pashhatraat but it's it's it's still medashraik it's not clear and then I'll tell you a swarno which I think is closer to pashad rashi says and it's a famous medish that what they were arguing about was that the shepherds of lo were allowing their flocks to graze on property belonging to the kanim and the priest right and they were saying basically God's giving us the land and am shepherds were saying no we don't have it yet it still belongs to them and that's the connection between the second part of the sentence and the first so it's medic but close to the says something I think even more even more beautiful basically what the sarno says is as follows there was an argument and a reeve and a terrible argument split in within the camp of Abraham and Lot. At the time that was happening, they were surrounded by aliens. They were surrounded by others who were looking at them, who were watching them, and who were basically saying, "They can't get along with each other. They're never going to get along with us." Take one step further. They can't get along with each other. It's a perfect time to attack. So now look at that puk and it speaks to us right. There was a riv between low right inner an inner dimension of turmoil and and nothing changes right nothing new under the sun we become vulnerable when we can't get along with each other and that's problematic. All right let's go on. We're going to take another look now with this now this one's a a very interesting one I think there we're going to go to the ao all right and here Rashi quotes medish that's medish and I think because he's having a difficulty with the text what does the medish say what does the Torah say where the introduction to the reads as follows it was after these Abraham. Now, what's problematic in that sentence? >> Is it I I've asked you this before. Does the Torah follow chronological order? >> Sure does. It follows chronological order except when it doesn't. What do I mean by that? All right. As a rule, the Torah follows chronological order, right? A precedes, Sorah precedes Rifka, right? Follows chronological order. In fact, there are those who say, including the Ramban, that it's never out of order. There are some commentaries who say, you know, I can't understand the flow of the text as it's written. I guess this must have happened before. And that's the way they understand the text. But it's only in a few few sections. But I asked you that question and got your answer because I wanted to show you how you we you learned how we learned how I learned it. Right. I grew up thinking there's no order to what mean there's no order to the text. The text follows a chronological order except in unusual circumstances when some commentaries say it doesn't. And that's what we need to understand. So if that's the case, if the Torah follows chronological order, what's the problem with this? when why does the Torah ever have to say to me it was after these things right what why why does Torah ever have to say it so I'm sorry >> okay we're going to talk all right now let's take a look at what Rashi says here Rashi goes straight to Medish and and a medish which moves which veers totally from abs rashi says if you take a look at the next next page that the word devarim in this case does not mean does not mean things. It was after these things but rather durim. It was after these statements and says Rashi what were the durim two possibilities and he's quoting Medish one possibility is that Sultan said to Akesh Baraku you know Abra made a party when the son was born and didn't even offer a carb unto you. So, Hashem says to him, "DY, you're going to see how willing a car he'll be to give a real carbon." And that led to the ao. Second possibility is that Ishmael was saying to Yitzk, you think that you're so good. You had a bris at 8 days. I had a bris when I was 12 years old. I'm much better than you, right? I'm willing. So along comes Hashem and says we'll see what Yitzk is willing to give up and and that'll answer Ishmael. Now that is Medrashik that the Torah doesn't Torah says the simple explanation is after these things. So why does the Torah ever say that phrase? So the rashbam as others says very simply every time the Torah says or there is a connection between what just happened and what's about to happen. It's not just telling me this happened after. It's telling me that this happened at least partially because of what preceded it. which would mean according to the Rashbam that I'd have to take a look at what precedes the Aedo and find a connection to the Aedo. All right. Well, what what precedes the Aedo? Take a look at page number four. Does anyone know? >> Ah, very good. Correct. Correct. If you take a look at page four, number four, and it's just a a small section of it. We see God is with you and his entourage comes to a we see God's with you. I want you to swear. I want you to make a a bris a covenant that you will not deal falsely with me or with my children or my grandchildren. And this is and he's asking by the way and it's important that as the paragraph develops they create a bris which is a real covenant real bris. Now what's what's the connection between that and the aedo? The rashbam is basically telling us that there has to be a connection. So the rashbam offers one that I think is very very powerful and it's it's revolutionary because it explains on some level why the aada occurs says the rashbam. Take a look and I want you to see his words. Take a look at the bottom of page four. following the brisks, the covenant that Ara made with the likes of Avime. By the way, Aviamelik is is a sort of an interesting character in the text. He's not evil, but he's not particularly good. He's a he's a he's sort of a king that allows things to happen and and claims he doesn't know they happened. All right, but anyway, because that and that emerges here, too, because the first thing that Aram says to you is, "Why did you steal my wells?" And aime says, "I didn't do anything. I didn't know about it." Whatever. You should know about it. Anyway, after you created a covenant with Avi for you and your children and your grandchildren, take a look at the next page. Page number five, the top of the page, the underlined section. Vitzaro. God responded to that bris by creating a very very frightening reality for Aval. He basically is punishing him. Why? You were willing means you dealty with your child that I gave to you by endangering him with a bris with aime in perpetu in intergenerationally. Now take that child that you endangered and offer him up on the mountain. And now you'll know what that that bris really was. It just what what the value of that bris was. Now what what's happening here? Rashbam is suggesting because we really have a problem when it comes to the ao and the concept of nison in general and there are all sorts of explanations as to why god tests man but in this particular case the rash offers yet another explanation I don't think he denies all the others but he also he says there is something happening here that god is responding to and if you go back up actually you find a very interesting um pattern in the text around that leads to the ao. It's a pattern where Abraham has to deal with the outside world and has to retreat from the outside world and then has to deal with the outside world and has to retreat from the outside world. And what what's that pattern creating? It's creating the balance that we've had to have throughout our history, which is we live in the world and we have to know where to draw the line. We have to know where we can't step over the line. If we step over the line, then we endanger ourselves. We endanger our children. We have to know what we can accept from an outside culture and what we can't. Ara according to the Rashbam steps over the line here by creating that covenant with Avi. He endangers Yitzk and his progeny and the balance is offkilter and Hashem has to respond and the rashban says so this again becomes very relevant for us because we are I'm working on a on a on a book now about the cycle of the year and one of the one of the essays that I have is that we the name the names of the months of the year where do they come According to most explaining a comment in the Gomorrah that says they were brought back from Babylon, right? The rabbi most commentaries say these were Babylonian names that we adopted. Wait a minute. We're calling the the months of our year across perpetuity by the names that were called by a country that enslaved us, defeated us, uh burnt the burnt the temple, uh sent us into exile. Why? Why are we doing that? So, I ask you something. Is it true that we as we go through history are affected by the world around us? >> Are we changed by the world around us? Right? Take a look at look for in our day when we finally see Jews across the world ashkanazms farm glitz litvox it. What is all that? That's all baggage. That's all baggage that we picked up. You know, walk the street here in Shalam and you'll see so many different Jews of so many different backgrounds of so many different costumes and basically we pick up things from the world around us. But and this is where the balance comes in. We have to know where we have to stop. We have to know where this and it becomes even more problematic in our day when the outside world invades our homes and invades our children's world and and and things are coming in that you you just you you know you just have to say no to. Yes. >> What was wrong? Okay. the actual Brit was that they would have pe that they would that they would they would treat each other with respect. But basically what he was saying is you have rights and I have rights. And a part part one of the commentaries in the Kazal says basically that Aram was destined to get the land from Aimel. He should never have made a bris basically saying you have the rights. So that but also I I think also it was to make a covenant with someone like Avi Melik is problematic not just in terms of the land it's problematic because you don't you don't accept what aime stands for yes >> explains the first one right after the game by the way and I heard from Brown in Poland a beautiful day again. >> Okay. All right. Good. I'm listening. >> That found that the DNA changed that you had this message of was put into and that's why we had to bring after the enab tragedies to the Holocaust in Poland. This could work great. >> Interesting. Interesting. It's also appropriate for this. It's also appropriate for this shabas because this shabas has the to this shabas we read uh frighteningly prophetic frightening prophetic curses that will ensue to to the Israelites to the Jews fail on our based on our failures. All right, take a look now though. I'm going to give you a bonus shot. What I mean by that is we're going to take a look at another text very quickly because we're running out of time. And and I want to show you how again a reading of the text makes so much difference. This is the next generation. And I'll take questions afterwards. This is the next generation. What happens? Take a look. Migrs with his entourage, right? But and he says, "Why have you come to me? You hated me and you sent me from you." And they answer, "Oh no, no. We see that God is with you. And now let there be a an agreement between us. Let's make a covenant. if you will deal with us falsely just like we did not harm you and sent you away in peace. Okay, so what's going on here? First of all, one of the things you see in Yeitzk's life is he it repeats many of the things that happened in Aram's life happen in Yitzk's life. >> Same not clear. Avi like parro could well have been the title. But what's the first thing we see? Avi's coming to you. It's what's the first thing we see? What happened to your intergenerational bris? Right? You know, just you just you just made a comment. If it's you or your your father or grandfather and now you have to make another one. What? So that's issue number one. But now take a look at what Yitzk says and what Aime says. Are they disagreeing about the facts? And the answer is no. Yetsk said, "You sent me from you. You chased me out of your land." And Aimel says, "We sent you in sent you in peace." They're not disagreeing about the facts. What are they disagreeing about? The definition of peace, right? That's what they're disagreeing about. Basically, Aviamel is saying peace means we won't kill you. We may exile you. We may uh whatever, but we won't kill you. And along comes Yeitzk and says, "Oh, you sent me out. You hate me." Now, there is a fundamental difference between Yitzk and Aimel as the way you define peace. What's the next thing that happens? Next thing that happens is stops talking. The discussion stops and he throws a party. Why? First of all, it's dangerous. He has to There's nothing to talk about. When you are facing someone who sees the world so absolutely differently than you do as we know there's no conversation. So Yitzk says I'm not going to I'm not going to make a bris with him. I'm not going to make a covenant with him. I'll I'll make some agreements to make us feel bad to so he won't kill me. But the fact is that we we're we're negotiations are over. No negotiations. And then what does it say at the end? And this is where the Torah has such beautiful irony after this party. They swore to each other, but they did not make a bris. It doesn't appear the way it did with Abraham. And then what does he do? exactly what they did to him and they are leaving in their definition of peace. In other words, he's basically saying all right that I can't nothing to talk about, nothing to negotiate. We're not going to make a real and by the way who come down on Araham for the creation of the bris with aime are silent when it comes to this exam episode. They don't they don't criticize yet. And if you learn the text carefully, it's clear why because understands that you can't make a covenant with a melik. Okay. So what? Yes. >> I say they want to kill every single one of us and want the whole land from the river. >> We are not. >> I'm trying. There were numerous things we said in this class that absolutely mirror exactly what's happening in our world. Numerous things we said and that that again. All right. So I hope that I've made my case that medish is beautiful and should be understood as medish and shot is beautiful and should be under taught as the way we should start. We should start with the shot and then go to the medish. Yes. have the right to make a bridge with Abel. >> According to Kazal though, that's right. According to Kazal, he had no right to make a bris with Abi Melik because eventually Abby Melik was going to have land that Aram was supposed to get etc etc. He should not have made the bris. Okay. Uh thank you very much everybody. >> Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I always struggle between the the problem of the authority of the >> midashim >> because we have to be there which we have to accept is coming right traditionally from