OLD WINE IN NEW FLASKS:

THE STORY OF LATE NEOCLASSICAL MIDRASH

Arnon Atzmon

Abstract

Scholarly consensus holds that early classical midrashim focused upon midrashic-
ally glossing the local verse. This is primarily true for the exegetical midrashim,
but it is also true for the homiletical midrashim as well. In contrast, the later
midrashim were principally concerned with expanding the biblical story. Many
scholars have shown that we witness the narrative component taking pride of place
over that once occupied by the exegetical component in midrashic literature.
In this paper, I wish to shed light upon another evolutionary direction in the his-
tory of the late midrash, a stage which I will refer to as ‘late neoclassical midrash.’
In this evolutionary branch, there was a structural return to the verse-focused
exegetical style of classical midrash. A redactor of this midrashic type often used
materials already shaped by the later narrative style, reshaping them back into the
earlier classical form.
The paper will begin by reviewing a number of brief, neoclassical, midrashic
compositions, namely, Midrash Exodus Rabbah I, and Midrash Esther Rabbah II, and
continue by demonstrating this neoclassical phenomenon by analyzing aggadic-
narrative material from the midrash Pirqe de Rabbi Eliezer, assimilated by the neo-
classical Esther Rabbah II.
Various literary and historical approaches for analysing this phenomenon will
be suggested. Among these, I will suggest that these midrashim were created in
a historical circumstance, in Spain, in which the stature of biblical commentary
was ascendant. The desire to return to the classical midrashic form reflected a
tendency to strengthen the bond between Hazal’s derashot and the biblical text, an
approach designed to strengthen the position of the midrashic tradition as biblical
commentary.

* This paper is based upon a lecture presented at the VIIIth EAJS Congress in
Moscow ( July, 2006). I would like to express my gratitude to Professor Joseph Tabory
for his input. I thank Beit Shalom Kyoto Japan for their financial support.
© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2009 EJJS 3.2
Also available online—brill.nl/ejjs DOI: 10.1163/102599909X12530639492877
184 arnon atzmon

Introduction
Late Midrash

Scholars of midrash and aggadah distinguish between early and

later midrash.1 Early midrash-aggadah, principally the exegetical,
but the homiletical as well, primarily dedicates itself to midrashic-
ally glossing the local verse. In contrast, later midrash mainly
devotes itself to narrative expansions of the Bible.2 Scholars, such
as Joseph Heinemann, Ophrah Meir, Avigdor Shinan, and, most
significantly, Jacob Elbaum have demonstrated that in the Tanhuma
Midrash group as well as in compositions like Tanna de-Vei Eliyahu and
Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer, we witness a change in attitude privileging the
narrative component over the exegetical component in midrashic
literature.3 In their opinion, this tendency of preferring narrative
1
Midrash scholars commonly distinguish between midrash-aggadah’s classical
and later periods of creativity. See, for instance: Encyclopaedia Judaica, s.v. “Midrash;”
Yonah Fraenkel, Darkei ha’aggadah ve-ha-midrash [‘The Methods of the Aggadah and
the Midrash’] (Givatayim: Yad Hatalmud, 5751 [1991]), 3–10 [Hebrew]. In the
present context, I do not feel it necessary to introduce the different approaches
adopted regarding dating the various periods (for instance, defining the “Middle
Period”), nor do I see a need to explore the competing—oftentimes judgmen-
tal—attitudes held towards the compositions’ qualitative levels in the different eras.
The general remarks made by Jacob Elbaum at the beginning of his article on
“The Later Midrashic Literature” seem eminently fitting as an introduction to our
discussion as well: “regarding this matter, it will suffice if I provide several generic
signs typifying what I refer to as the late midrashic literature, and to take additional
precautions, so that I am not brought to task for definitions that are extraneous
to the heart of the matter, I will declare that I intend to deal with the Tanhuma
Midrash group, with Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer and with Tanna de-Vei Eliyahu, in which
I find classical signs of a paradigm shift in the history of aggadic writing.” (“Bein
arikhah le-shikhtuv: le-ofyah shel ha-sifrut ha-midrashit ha-me’u˜eret” [‘Between Redaction
and Rewriting: On the Nature of Later Midrashic Literature’] Proceedings of the
Ninth World Congress of Jewish Studies, 3 [5756 (1986)]: 57–62 [Hebrew].)
2
In this context, I will not explore the commonplace distinction between exeget-
ical and homiletical midrashim. I will just note that Joshua Levinson has recently
argued that as early as Leviticus Rabbah “the homiletical-exegetical narrative’s
liberation from its local context and renewed acceptance into broader redacto-
rial contexts begins to appear.” According to Levinson, “the strengthening of the
tendency towards narrative, at the expense of the tendency towards interpretation,
signaled a change in the literary hierarchy and foretold the rise of narrative as
an independent source of knowledge and authority” ( Joshua Levinson, Ha-sippur
she-lo suppar: Omanut ha-sippur ha-mikra’i ha-mur˜av be-midreshei ˜azal [‘Twice told tale:
poetics of the exegetical narrative in rabbinic midrash’] [ Jerusalem: Magnes, 5765
(2005)], 250 [ Hebrew]).
3
Joseph Heinemann, Aggadot ve-toldoteihen [‘Aggadah and Its Development’]
( Jerusalem: Keter, 1974), 181 [Hebrew]. Ofra Meir, “Ha-sippur‘ ha-darshani’ be-
midrash kadum u-me’u ar” [‘The Homilietical-Exegetical Narrative in Early and
Later Midrash’], Sinai 86, 5/6 (5740 [1980]): 246–266 [Hebrew]; Avigdor Shinan,
“Mi-derashat ha-pasuk el ha’aggadah ha- ofshit: Perek be-toldot ha-sippur ha-
 old wine in new flasks 185

expansion eventually reached full bloom later with the appearance

of compositions like Sefer ha-Yashar, works stylistically similar to the
rewritten Bible genre familiar to us from the Second Temple litera-
ture.4 This genre is principally dedicated to an unbridled retelling
of the biblical story. Even if compositions like Sefer ha-Yashar were
created beyond the borders the Sages’ world,5 their origins can be
discerned far earlier.6
In this article, I would like to shed light upon another evolution-
ary direction taken by midrash, one I refer to as “late neoclassical
midrash.” This appellation refers to an even later form of midrash
characterized by a return to the structural style exhibited by the
early, classical, exegetical midrash.7 Redactors of this midrash

mikra’i ha-mur av” [‘Aggadic Motifs between Midrash and Story’], Jerusalem Studies
in Hebrew Literature 5 (5744 [1984]): 203–220 [Hebrew]; for articles written by
Jacob Elbaum on this matter that also cite his predecessors: general remarks—see
fn. 1 above; articles dealing with specific compositions: Tan˜uma Midrash—Jacob
Elbaum, “From Sermon to Story: The Transformation of the Akedah,” Prooftexts
6, 2 (1986): 97–116; “Kamah berakhot mitpallel adam be-khol yom (Tanhuma
Buber VaYera 1–5): Iyun be-darkhei izuvah shel derashah tan uma’it” [‘How
many benedictions does one say every day?’], in Knesset Ezra: Sifrut ve-˜ayyim be-veit
ha-knesset: Asufat ma’amarim mugeshet le-Ezra Fleischer [‘Knesset Ezra: Literature and
Life in the Synagogue: Studies Presented to Ezra Fleischer’], ed. S. Elizur et al.
( Jerusalem: Yad Yitshak Ben-Tsevi, 5755 [1994]), 149–167 [Hebrew]; “Tanna
de-Vei Eliyahu—Bein midrash le-sefer musar: iyunim bi-ferakim aleph-vav be-
Tanna de-Vei Eliyahu” [‘Tanna de-Vei Eliyahu—Between a Midrash and an Ethical
Treatise: Analyses of Chapters 1–6 of Tanna de-Vei Eliyahu’], Jerusalem Studies in
Hebrew Literature 1 (5741 [1981]): 144–154 [Hebrew]; “Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer—Od
al aggadot ha-akedah” [‘More on the Aqeda legends’], Jerusalem Studies in Hebrew
Literature 9 (5746 [1986]): 341–356 [Hebrew].
4
“The Re-Written Bible” is a term first coined by Géza Vermes in discussing
the apocryphal scroll on Genesis (Scripture and Tradition in Judaism [Leiden: Brill,
1961], 67–126). See: Philip S. Alexander, “Retelling the old testament,” in It Is
Written: Scripture Citing Scripture, Essays in Honor of Barnabas Lindars, eds. Donald A.
Carson and Hugh G.M. Williamson (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1988), 99–121.
5
See Joseph Dan, “Matai nit˜aber Sefer ha-Yasha r ” [‘When was Sefer ha-Yashar
Composed?’], in Sefer Dov Sadan: Kovetz me˜karim mugashim lo bi-melot lo shivim ve-
˜amesh shanah [‘Dov Sadan’s Book: Studies presented to him on the occasion of
his seventy-fifth birthday’], eds. Samuel Werses, Nathan Rotenstreich and Chone
Shmeruck (Tel Aviv: ha-Kibuts ha-meu ad, 5737 [1977]): 105–110 [Hebrew]; ibid.
(editor), Sefer ha-Yashar ( Jerusalem: Mosad Byalik, 5746 [1986]), 7–17 [Hebrew].
6
An up-to-date and comprehensive description of the process described herein,
may be found in Joshua Levinson’s book (fn. 2 above), 315–317.
7
To clarify the time frame: the later midrashim, like the Tanhuma Midrash group
and Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer (fn. 1 above), are usually dated to around the seventh and
eighth centuries (Regarding the principal exemplars of the Tanhuma Midrash literature,
see: Marc Bregman’s recently published doctoral dissertation: Sifrut ha-Tanhuma-
Yelammedenu: Ti’ur nuse˜eya ve-iyunim be-darkhei hithavutam [‘The Tanhuma-Yelammedenu
Literature: Studies in the Evolution of the Versions’] (New Jersey: Gorgias Press, 5764
186 arnon atzmon

often use materials already shaped by the later narrative style,

refashioning them back into the earlier classical form. By “earlier
classical form,” I primarily refer to the sequential aspect wherein
the midrashic material is presented as running commentary, firmly
bound to the verses. This redactorial decision reflects the redactor’s
preference for the exegetical over the narrative component in
midrash-aggadah. In describing this process, we are witness to the
devolution—or, should I say, evolution—of midrash, from its latest
form back into its ancient one.8
I will begin by reviewing a few brief examples of neoclassical,
midrashic compositions. In the main part of my discussion, I will
demonstrate the phenomenon of neoclassical midrash by analyzing
aggadic-narrative material absorbed into a neoclassical midrash.
In concluding, I will suggest various approaches for analyzing this
phenomenon, in general, and, in particular, for comprehending the
historical and intellectual background underlying its birth.

Examples of Neoclassical Midrash—Exodus Rabbah I, Esther Rabbah II

Exodus Rabbah I

One exemplar of neoclassical midrash, in my opinion, can be found

in Midrash Exodus Rabbah I. This midrash glosses the first eleven
chapters in the book of Exodus, and was probably redacted to fill
the midrashic gap between Genesis Rabbah and the Mekhilta of Rabbi
Yishmael; the latter opening with a midrashic gloss on the first verses
in Exodus 12, which deal with the first commandment given to the
children of Israel, “This month, shall mark for you.” Exodus Rabbah
II, written on the rest of Exodus, and a work belonging to the

[2003]), 180–188 [Hebrew]; Regarding Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer, see: Dina Stein, Meimra
Magi’a Mythos: Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer le-or me˜kar ha-sifrut ha-amamit [‘Maxims, Magic,
Myth: A Folkloristic Perspective of Pirkei deRabbi Eliezer’] ( Jerusalem: Magnes,
5765 [2004]), 2–8 [Hebrew]; Encyclopaedia Judaica, s.v. “Pirkei De-Rabbi Eliezer.”
Regarding Tanna de-Vei Eliyahu, see: Ephraim E. Urbach, “Le-she’elat leshono u-mekorotav
shel sefer ‘Seder Eliyyahu’ ” [‘On the Question of the Language and the Source of the
Book Seder Eliyyahu’], Leshoneinu 21 (5717 [1957]): 183–197 [Hebrew]; Encyclopaedia
Judaica, s.v. “Tanna De-Vei Eliyahu.” The neoclassical midrashim, which are the
focus of my discussion, are dated to a later period, around the eleventh century.
8
In this article, I will not explore other traits characteristic of classical midrash’s
creative force, such as proems, concluding perorations, and so forth.
 old wine in new flasks 187

Tanhuma Midrash group, was later added to Exodus Rabbah I. Avigdor

Shinan, the author of the critical edition of Exodus Rabbah I, has
already noted that the main source used by this midrash’s redac-
tor was a Tanhuma Midrash similar to the printed Tanhuma version.9
The redactor chose to split up the aggadic traditions among the
relevant verses, thus creating a flowing, exegetical midrash tightly
bound, more or less, to the biblical verses.10 Thus, we have before
us an example of the use of partially-aggadic-narrative material or,
at least, of complete conceptual structures, and their being refash-
ioned into an exegetical form, tightly bound to the verses.

Esther Rabbah II

Another even more pristine example of the phenomenon we are

discussing is Esther Rabbah II. This midrash was presumably redacted
to function as an ending for the earlier Midrash Esther Rabbah which
had ended naturally at the end of Parsha 6—the end of chapter two
in the Esther Scroll—or which had been lost from this point on.11
One of the sources used by the redactor of Esther Rabbah II is Pirkei
de-Rabbi Eliezer (PDR), or to be more specific those chapters in PDR,
forty-nine to fifty, which deal with the Esther Scroll.12 Elsewhere, I
have argued at length in order to establish Esther Rabbah II ’s use of
PDR; the upshot of my argument being that there are segments in
Esther Rabbah II that can be identified as material borrowed from

9
Avigdor Shinan, Midrash Shemot Rabbah: Chapters I–XIV: A Critical Edition
( Jerusalem: Devir, 5744 [1984]), 12.
10
Examples of this phenomenon have already been cited in Abraham Epstein’s
Mi-kadmoniyot ha-Yehudim [‘Of Jewish Antiquities’] ( Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook,
5725 [1956]), 61–64 [Hebrew].
11
See Joseph Tabory, “Ha˜aluka le-parshiyot be-midrash Esther Rabbah”
[‘The Division into Sections in Midrash Esther Rabbah’] Teudah 11 (5756 [1996]): 198
[Hebrew]; Arnon Atzmon, “Esther Rabbah II—Towards a Critical Edition” (Ph.D.
diss., Bar Ilan University, 5766), 9–15 [Hebrew]; Myron B. Lerner, “The Works of
Aggadic Midrash and the Esther Midrashim,” in The Literature of the Sages II, ed.
Shmuel Safrai et al. (Assen: Royal Van Gorcum, 2006), 179–189.
12
Apropos discussing Amalek and the commandment to wipe out its seed, chap-
ters forty-nine to fifty of Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer are devoted to the story of the Esther
Scroll. In Rabbi David Luria’s edition (Warsaw 5612 [1852]), 117a–123a; ed. and
transl., Gerald Friedlander (London: K. Paul, Trench, Trubner, 1916), 241–246;
Michael Higger’s edition, chapters forty-eight to forty-nine, 241–246 [published in:
Horeb 10 (5708 [1948])]. In keeping with its overall style, here to PDR recounts the
scroll’s tale in its flowing style, integrating partial and paraphrastic verse citations
alongside of midrashic segments.
188 arnon atzmon

PDR, possessing PDR’s composer’s unique redactorial stamp.13

These segments, which comprise about one third of the relevant
material in PDR, are part of the complete, harmonious, narrative
structure which that midrash is founded upon.14 In contrast, in
Esther Rabbah II, these derashot (plural of derashah, literally the end
product of the midrashic process, sometimes translated as homilies)
are scattered and absorbed into a far more varied weave of derashot
possessing different styles; they ultimately comprise not more than
ten percent of Esther Rabbah II. The redactorial activity, typically
undertaken by Esther Rabbah II’s redactor in integrating these seg-
ments into his composition, can even be reconstructed.
In this case, the source text, PDR, is a prime exemplar of agga-
dic narrative, and the source drawing upon it, Esther Rabbah II,
reworked the narrative segments to fit into its own verse-bound
interpretive structure. In the following, I will focus upon one seg-
ment to concretize the nature of the aggadic-narrative material in
PDR and the way in which the redactor of Esther Rabbah II inserted
and reshaped this segment so that it fit into his composition’s con-
tinuous, running commentary.

The Midrash on “So Mordecai Passed”—From Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer to

Esther Rabbah II

First the material from PDR, the source composition, will be pre-
sented and then the refashioned material, as it appears in Esther
Rabbah II—the composition drawing upon PDR—will be dis-
cussed.

13
Arnon Atzmon. “Ma‘aseh Esther” be-Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer u-be-Midrash
Esther Rabbah II: Le-bisusah shel zikah ben makbilot be-sifrut ˜azal” [‘Ma’aseh
Esther in Pirke deRabbi Eliezer and in Midrash Esther Rabbah II: Towards Establishing
the Relationship between Parallels in Midrashic Literature’], Tarbiz LXXV, 3–4
(5766 [2006]): 329–344 [Hebrew].
14
Several scholars have dealt with this composition’s literary character, pointing
out several of the dominant phenomena characterizing it. See Jacob Elbaum, “Ha-
melitza, ha-motiv, ve-ha-inyan: le-derekh izuvo shel ha-sippur be-Pirkei de-Rabbi
Eliezer” [‘Rhetoric, motif and subject-matter: toward an analysis of narrative’],
Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Folklore 13–14 (5752 [1992]): 99–126 [Hebrew]. See
also Stein (Meimra Magi’a Mythos, 27–32: “Le-inyan ha-kompoziziyah shel Pirekei
deRabbi Eliezer” [‘Regarding the composition of Pirkei deRabbi Eliezer’]), where she
reviews her predecessors work.
 old wine in new flasks 189

The Derashah in Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer

Before dealing with the segment itself, I wish to introduce two pre-
suppositions foundational to any analysis of PDR, presuppositions
well substantiated by studies undertaken by Jacob Elbaum:15
a. The fashioning of the material in PDR reflects consistent
redactorial principles designed to integrate the fragmented
midrashic material into a complete narrative structure.
b. The use by PDR’s redactor of similar expressions or motifs in
various narrative contexts is not accidental. It is intended to
establish their parallelism and to resound in the inter-textual
space between them.
In the following table, I have placed the materials from PDR in the
left-hand column,16 and the text of the Esther Scroll in the right-
hand one.17
In the segment before us, the composer of PDR midrashically
glosses, or perhaps more correctly retells chapters four to five of the
Esther Scroll. Contrasting the biblical with the aggadic material
illustrates that, on the one hand, the composer of PDR chose to
stress and expand upon certain events described in these chapters,
while on the other hand, he chose to abridge or even omit other
particulars. The principal events omitted are: Mordecai’s request
(chapter four, verses seven to eight); Esther’s evasive answer (verse
eleven); Mordecai’s harsh rebuke (verses thirteen to fourteen);
Esther’s audience with the king (chapter five, verses one to four);
15
Ibid., 130.
16
In examining the material from Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer, I utilized MS NY, JTS
10484. This manuscript formed the basis for Friedlander’s English translation (fn.
12 above) which I cite in the following table, and utilize throughout this article. In
establishing the Hebrew text, I also used a synoptic edition consisting of six textual
witnesses prepared by Eliezer Treitel, who is presently working upon a doctoral
dissertation on the topic of Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer. I thank him for allowing me to
use his edition. I decided to choose MS New York because of the quality of its text
(of course, conclusions based upon the analysis of these two chapters should not
be applied to the entire composition), and because of its consistent likeness to the
version incorporated in Midrash Esther Rabbah II. In any event, the textual variations
discovered within the example under discussion were insignificant. Regarding the
state of the Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer versions, see: Lewis M. Barth, “Is Every Medieval
Hebrew Manuscript a New Composition?,” Marc L. Raphael (ed.), Agendas for the
Study of Midrash in the Twenty-first Century (Williamsburg: College of William and
Mary, 1999), 43–62; Stein, Meimra Magi’a Mythos, 22–23.
17
Translations of the Esther Scroll in this article are taken from the JPS 1917
version.
190 arnon atzmon
Table 1: The Derashah from Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer and the
Corresponding Biblical Verses
Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer
(Friedlander, 400)
Mordecai heard (thereof ), and
rent his clothes, and put on
sackcloth with ashes . . . and
he cried before the Holy One,
blessed be He, saying: Sovereign
of all worlds! Thou didst swear to
our forefathers to multiply their
seed like the stars of the heaven,
A and now hast Thou given them
like sheep to the slaughter.
Esther heard (thereof ) and her
strength failed (tashash ko˜a),
as it said: “And the queen was
exceedingly pained” [=va-tit˜al˜al
ha-malkah me’od ]
She sent and called for Hathach,
the trusty (servant) of her
household, to know what had
been done to Mordecai.
Hathach went forth to Mordecai,
And he told him the words,
Hathach went in and told Esther,
Haman saw Hathach coming
and returning, and he slew him,
B and Esther did not find another
man faithful enough to send to
Mordecai, and she told herself
(=said to her soul) to go to
Mordecai, as it said: “and Esther
said to answer Mordecai.”
Biblical Text ( JPS, 1917)
4:1 Now when Mordecai knew
all that was done, Mordecai
rent his clothes, and put on
sackcloth with ashes, and went
out into the midst of the city,
and cried with a loud and a
bitter cry . . .
4:4 And Esther’s maidens and
her chamberlains came and
told it her; and the queen was
exceedingly pained . . .
4:5 Then called Esther for
Hathach . . . and charged him to
go to Mordecai, to know what
this was, and why it was.
4:6–8 So Hathach went forth to
Mordecai to the city streets . . .
And Mordecai told him . . .
4:9–15 And Hathach came
and told Esther the words of
Mordecai. Then Esther spoke
unto Hathach . . . And they told
to Mordecai Esther’s words.
Then Mordecai bade them to
return answer unto Esther . . .
Then Esther bade them return
answer unto Mordecai: [=and
Esther said to answer Mordecai]
 old wine in new flasks
Table 1: (cont.)
Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer
(Friedlander, 400)
[part 1] She said to him: Go, gather
together all the Jews who are
present . . .
These (days) were the thirteenth, the
fourteenth, and the fifteenth of Nisan.
Mordecai said to her: Is not the third
day the first day of Passover? She said
to him: Thou art the elder in Israel.
If there be no Israel, wherefore is the
Passover? Mordecai hearkened to
her words, and he agreed with her.
“So Mordecai passed (=va-ya’avor
Mordecai)”: What is the meaning of
“so Mordecai passed”? That he passed
[or, transgressed upon] the first day of
C Passover without eating and drinking.
On the third day Esther put on the
royal apparel
[part 2] and sent and invited the king
and Haman to the banquet which she
had prepared on the fifteenth of
Nisan.
When they had eaten and drunk
Haman said to himself: The king
exalts me, and his wife aggrandizes
me, and there is none greater than I
am in all his kingdom, and Haman
rejoiced very much in his heart, as it
is said: “Then went Haman forth that
day, joyful and glad of heart.”
191
Biblical Text ( JPS, 1917)
4:16 ‘Go, gather together all the
Jews that are present in Shushan,
and fast ye for me, and neither
eat nor drink three days, night or
day; I also and my maidens will
fast in like manner; and so will I
go in unto the king, which is not
according to the law; and if I
perish, I perish.
4:17 So Mordecai went his way,
and did according to all that
Esther had commanded him.
5:1–4 Now it came to pass on the
third day, that Esther put on her
royal apparel . . . let the king and
Haman come this day unto the
banquet that I have prepared for
him. . . .
5:6–8 And the king said unto
Esther at the banquet of wine . . .
let the king and Haman come to
the banquet that I shall prepare
for them, and I will do to-morrow
as the king hath said.’
5:9 Then went Haman forth that
day joyful and glad of heart . . .
192 arnon atzmon

the conversation at the first banquet of wine and Esther’s invitation

of the king and Haman to a second banquet (verses six to eight).
PDR’s redactor chose to completely ignore the information con-
veyed in these biblical verses. On the other hand, he chose to focus
upon and expanded certain particulars mentioned only briefly or
even completely absent from the biblical account. I have divided
PDR’s aggadic structure into three sections, reflecting three stages
in the plot development.
1. In the first section, the news reaches Mordecai and Esther.
2. In the second section Hathach functions as an intermediary
between Mordecai and Esther.
3. In the third section, Esther takes charge, communicates her
plan to Mordecai and puts it into action.
In the first section PDR’s redactor contrasts the diametrically
opposed reactions of Mordecai and Esther: Mordecai heard and
prayed—Esther heard and her strength failed her. The specific
choice of wording in the midrash is not accidental; it is deliberate
and charged with significance. While Mordecai’s prayer appears in
other midrashic sources, its unique wording in PDR emphasizes its
striking similarity to Moses’ prayer after the sin of the golden calf,
as recorded by PDR in chapter forty-four: “Moses spake before the
Holy One, blessed be He (saying): Sovereign of all the worlds! Didst
Thou not swear to these (forefathers) thus to increase their seed like
the stars of the heaven . . . ”
“Esther heard (thereof ) and her strength failed,” is PDR’s unique
interpretation of the phrase va-tit˜al˜al ha-malkah. This fairly bland
and colorless interpretation stands in marked contrast to the wide-
spread midrashic tendency to endow this unusual phrase with far
more dramatic meanings, like she “began to menstruate,” “had a
bowel movement,” and “miscarried.”18 In my view, the redactor
seems intent on contrasting Esther’s reaction—her inability to react
to the crisis by utilizing prayer—with Mordecai’s prayer. In choos-
ing the term tashash ko˜a—she became weak—the redactor may be
alluding to the midrash in bBerakhot 32a:19

18
Eliezer Segal writes in his commentary on the Esther midrash in the Babylonian
Talmud that, in his opinion, PDR had chosen a neutral interpretation to allow for
the other possibilities to be read into it. (Eliezer Segal, The Babylonian Esther Midrash:
A Critical Commentary [Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994], 248, fn. 33).
19
This translation is based upon the Soncino translation of the Talmud (Isidore
 old wine in new flasks 193

“And the Lord spoke unto Moses, ‘Go, get thee down’ [Exodus 32:7].”
What is meant by “Go, get thee down?” R. Eleazar said: The Holy
One, blessed be He, said to Moses: Moses, descend from thy great-
ness. Have I at all given to thee greatness save for the sake of Israel?
And now Israel has sinned; Why should you [still] possess greatness?
Straightway, Moses became powerless [tashash ko˜o], and he lacked the
strength to speak. When, however, [God] said, ‘Let me alone, that I
may destroy them [Exodus 32:15]’; straightway he stood in prayer.’
In the first stage, the redactor contrasts between Mordecai—who
prays—and Esther who is powerless. Moses’ figure echoes in both
of them.20
In the second segment, the composer omits the details of
the messages sent in the Bible, barely mentioning the missions
themselves—“She sent and called for Hathach . . . Hathach went
forth . . . [and] Hathach went in.” This teaches us that the composer
was primarily interested in the following derashah in which Hathach
is killed: “Haman saw Hathach coming and returning, and he slew
him.” Furthermore, in reworking verse five—“She sent and called
for Hathach, the trusty (servant) of her household, to know what had been
done to Mordecai”—the composer deliberately uses certain phrases.
The phrase “the trusty (servant) of her household” hints at why
Hathach had been appointed, and provides an explanation for why
Esther did not use any other emissary after this one had been killed,
as PDR immediately recounts: “and Esther did not find another

Epstein [ed.] Hebrew-English Edition of the Babylonian Talmud: Berakoth, trans. Maurice
Simon [London/Jerusalem/New York: Soncino Press, 1960].) In checking this
translation against the Aramaic text, I have based myself upon MS Munich 95.
No significant variants were found between this manuscript and any other tex-
tual witnesses. The term ˜al˜alah creates another interesting connection between
Esther’s reaction here and Moshe’s reaction to the sin of the golden calf. See, for
instance, Midrash Leka˜ Tov, Exodus 32:11 (Buber edition), 102a: “Va-ye˜al Moshe.
This teaches us that he was gripped with ˜al˜alah.” See likewise Midrash Aggadah,
Exodus 32:15 (Buber edition), 182: “And Moses turned and descended. He turned
away from his ˜al˜alah and regained his strength.”
20
The echoes provoked by Moses’ figure may stem from the broader context in
which the Esther Scroll finds itself in PDR, the eternal conflict between Israel and
Amalek. In chapter forty-four, Moses prayer defeats Amalek. In chapter forty-eight,
the composer mentions Saul’s war with Amalek, and in this framework Samuel’s
prayer is cited: “And there stood Samuel before the Holy One, blessed be He, and
he said: Sovereign of all the universe! Do not forget Esau’s sin . . . Samuel said to
him: Just as the sword of Amalek thy ancestor consumed the young men of Israel
who were outside the cloud, so that their women dwelt (as) childless women and
widows . . . And like the prayer of Esther and her maidens . . .” The entire story of the
Esther Scroll is situated within the general context of Moses’ prayer and the his-
torical panoply stemming from it in the ongoing war against Amalek.
194 arnon atzmon

man faithful enough to send.”21 The phrase “what had been done
to Mordecai” alludes to and echoes the question later asked by the
king about Mordecai “And the king said: “ ‘What had been done
to honor or aggrandize Mordecai?’ ” (Esther 6:3) In this fashion,
the contrast between the expected “honor and aggrandizement”
Mordecai deserved, and his current position is stressed.
The notion underlying the derashah itself—“[And] Haman saw
Hathach coming and returning, and he slew him”—is rooted in
Hathach’s inexplicable disappearance from the communications
taking place between Mordecai and Esther beginning with verse
twelve: “And they told to Mordecai.” Indeed, in parallel midrashic
glosses, the homiletical solutions are attached to the beginning of
verse twelve: “ ‘And they told,’ from this [we learn] that Michael
and Gabriel were the emissaries”—thus, in Targum Rishon, or they
are attached to the beginning of verse thirteen “—‘Then Mordecai
bade them to return answer unto Esther,’ from this [we learn] that
the holy spirit functioned as an intermediary between them”—thus,
in Midrash Abba Guryon and in Midrash Panim A˜erim B.22 Either way,
the exegetical-homiletical motivation for the placement of the
derashah is clear.
However, in PDR the derashah is only connected to the begin-
ning of verse fifteen—“as it is said, ‘Then Esther bade them return
answer unto Mordecai,’ ” a placement which Rabbi David Luria
already questioned. The unique, midrashic solution provided by the
redactor of PDR is having Esther decide (literally, “say to her soul”)
to go out and talk directly with Mordecai. The key to understanding
the redactor’s choices, it seems to me, lies in revealing his underlying
goal in this segment: a segment which he dedicates to characterizing
Esther as a strong figure who taking the initiative opens up a direct
channel of communications between herself and Mordecai. After
Hathach’s disappearance, as is indicated by the phrase “say to her
soul,” Esther undergoes a radical change of heart and mind. This

21
Perhaps it would not be absurd to suggest that the phrase also alludes to
Moses, whom God describes as “trusted throughout My household” (Num 12:7).
22
Targum Rishon 5:11 [Bernard Grossfeld, The First Targum to Esther According to the
Ms. Paris Hebrew 110 of the Bibliotheque Nationale (New York: Sepher-Hermon Press,
1983), 24]; Midrash Abba Guryon, Chapter Four, Buber edition, 18b; Midrash Panim
A˜erim, Version B, Chapter Four, Buber edition, 35b (in: Shlomo Buber, Sifrei de-
Aggadetah al Esther [Sammlung Agadischer Commentare Zum Buche Esther], Vilna: Romm,
5647 [1886]).
 old wine in new flasks 195

phrase is also reminiscent of the derashah cited in Exodus Rabbah 30:4,

which compares Moses and Esther:23
Moses devoted his life to three things with the result that they were
called after his name. These things are . . . Esther likewise, because she
jeopardized her life for Israel, they [Israel] are called after her, as it
says, And to make request before him, for her people (Esther 4:8)
Esther’s internal transformation is expressed by her willingness to
“go to Mordecai” and establish direct dialogue, as detailed by the
next section. The same Esther, whose strength failed her in the first
section, now takes the initiative and boldly leads.
The third section is comprised of two parts. The focus of the
first part is the unmediated dialogue between Esther and Mordecai.
Esther demands that the people also fast “on the third day,” which
is the first day of Passover.24 According to PDR, Mordecai origi-
nally refused to follow Esther’s directive, arguing that the obligation
to celebrate Passover could not be overridden by the fast. Esther
rebukes Mordecai, emphasizing that he does not realize the extent
of Israel’s peril.25 The contrast between PDR’s dialogue and the
biblical one stands out, for in the Bible, Mordecai rebukes Esther
for failing to realize the gravity of Israel’s situation. Eventually,
Mordecai obeys Esther’s directive. The basis for this midrashic
tradition is a non-literal interpretation of the word va-ya’avor —liter-
ally, “and he passed”—to mean “and he transgressed.” This tradi-

23
Harry Freedman & Maurice Simon (eds.) Midrash Rabbah: Translated into English:
Exodus. Trans. Simon M. Lehrman. (London/New York: The Soncino Press, 1983).
This translation parallels the first printing of Exodus Rabbah (Constantinople 1512)
which I consulted.
24
The biblical phrase “and neither eat nor drink” has been understood as allud-
ing to the problematicity inherent in abrogating the performance of the Pascal
sacrifice. Indeed, in the continuation of the homily in PDR, Mordecai’s “neither
eating nor drinking” on the first day of Passover is emphasized. Seder Olam Rabbah
dates the Fast of Esther to Passover: “on the thirteenth of Nissan, Haman wrote
the epistles, to destroy, to kill etc., on the fifteenth of Nissan, Esther had her audience with
the king, on the sixteenth of Nissan, Haman was hung.” While the sentence “on
the fifteenth of Nissan, Esther had her audience with the king” is absent in Chaim
Milikowsky’s edition, both the one based upon MS Antonin (Chaim Milikowsky,
“Seder Olam: A Rabbinic Chronography” [Ph.D. diss., Yale University, 1981] 341,
542) and the updated version (in press), this is not enough to change the overall
picture of the events’ dating. Incidentally, the Sages suggest another approach to
dating these events; however, I will not explore that point here.
25
Perhaps Esther’s criticism of Mordecai—“Thou art the elder in Israel. If
there be no Israel, wherefore is the Passover?”—expresses some sort of popular
criticism of the scholars’ value scale.
196 arnon atzmon

tion is also recorded in bMegillah 15a, in the name of Rav: “ ‘And

Mordecai passed’ [Esther 4:17]: Rav said—he passed the first day of
Passover fasting.”26
In the second part of this section, Esther is the main character.
She too is required to “pass,” or transgress upon, the third day—the
fifteenth of Nissan—the first day of Passover; however, not by fast-
ing but rather by feasting. On the fifteenth of Nissan Mordecai was
forced to fast and Esther was forced to eat and drink at the feast she
prepared for Haman and the king. Esther’s goal in preparing this
feast is eloquently captured by Haman’s internal monologue—“The
king exalts me, and his wife aggrandizes me, and there is none
greater than I am in all his kingdom.” Haman’s vanity, amply
swelled by the feast, was the cause of his future downfall. This is
alluded to by the similarity of the words he uses here and the words
he uses later in PDR’s rendition of the story, when he stands before
the king and is betrayed by his tongue: “And Haman came before
the king. The king said to him: I wish to exalt and aggrandize a
certain man [ . . . ] Haman said in his heart: He does not desire to
honor and aggrandize any other man more than me [ . . . ] Haman
said: I will speak words so that I shall be a king just as he is [ . . . ]
The king was exceedingly angry because of the crown.”
Thus, the story in PDR is carefully and deliberately fashioned.
Its goal is to stress Esther and Mordecai’s role reversal, the central
issue here. In the background, resonates Moses’ figure—at first in
Mordecai’s prayer and Esther’s powerlessness, and later in Esther’s
self-sacrifice. Esther’s sends Mordecai off to fast—not to eat and
not to drink on the fifteenth of Nissan, on the third day—while she
goes off to participate in a feast with the king and Haman. In the
first stage, Esther is characterized as passive, powerless, weak; in
the second stage, her internal transformation takes place; and in the
third stage, she communicates the plan she concocted to Mordecai
and it is put into action.
Placing the events in this frame of reference entails a significant
departure, in fact an inversion, of the events as told in the Bible. In
the Bible, Esther’s dramatic audience with the king seems to func-
tion as the plot’s crucial turning point; this audience received sig-
nificant literary expansions in the Esther Scroll’s Greek translation
and in Josephus. The debate between Esther and Mordecai revolves

26
See Segal’s commentary (n. 18 above), 260–263.
 old wine in new flasks 197

around Esther’s willingness to approach the king, and the three-day

fast is established in order to save Esther, as she risks an audience
with the king, “fast for me” (Esther 4:16) proclaims the verse. In con-
trast, the redactor of PDR recounts that Esther “sent and invited
the king and Haman,” a painfully banal description devoid of any
color, paying no heed to Esther’s fateful audience with the king. In
PDR, the crucial transformation takes place in Esther’s heart and
mind. When it is successfully completed, Esther joins Mordecai in
his struggle, and even to a certain degree relieves him of his role.

The Derashah in Esther Rabbah II

In Table Two, you will find a sequence of derashot from Esther Rabbah
II (Chapters Eight and Nine),27 reproduced in the left-hand column,
and the corresponding biblical text from the Esther Scroll in the
right-hand column.
The redactor of Esther Rabbah II picked apart the weave of the
dramatic story in PDR and plucked out the texts which suited his
needs. He integrated these texts into the exegetical midrashic mate-
rial in his possession. He totally ignored the first two stages, appar-
ently because he did not need this material, and he split the third
stage into two parts, integrating additional material he possessed
between them. The first part, the conversation between Mordecai
and Esther, he attached to verse fifteen, “Then Esther bade them
return answer unto Mordecai.” He placed this segment immedi-
ately after an exegetical derashah expanding Mordecai’s rebuke of
Esther— “If you keep silent now and refrain from pleading for your
nation, in the end you will be silent in the time to come.”
The segment drawn from PDR functions in Esther Rabbah II as a
kind of exegetical derashah upon Esther’s reaction to Mordecai. In
keeping with the style of a verse-focused midrash, the redactor of
Esther Rabbah II replaced the paraphrase found in PDR—“Mordecai
hearkened to her words, and he agreed with her. ‘So Mordecai
passed (=va-ya’avor Mordecai )’: What is the meaning of ‘so Mordecai
passed’? . . . ”—for a citation of the verse itself: “as it says: ‘So
Mordecai went his way, and did according to all that Esther had

27
The text is taken from the critical edition composed for my doctoral disserta-
tion (see fn. 11 above).
198 arnon atzmon

Table 2: The Derashot from Esther Rabbah II and the Corresponding

Biblical Verses
Esther Rabbah II Biblical Text ( JPS, 1917)
[8:6] For if thou altogether holdest 4:14 For if thou altogether holdest
thy peace. If you keep silent now thy peace at this time, then will relief
and refrain from pleading for your and deliverance arise to the Jews
nation, in the end you will be silent from another place, but thou and thy
in the time to come and you will not father’s house will perish; and who
be able to justify yourself, because knoweth whether thou art not come to
you had the opportunity of doing royal estate for such a time as this?’
good with your hands and you did
not do it. And do you imagine that
the Holy One, blessed be He, will
abandon Israel? In any case He
will raise up a deliverer for them,
as it says: Then will relief and
deliverance arise to the Jews from
another place.
-----------------------------------------------
[ part 1] [8:7] Then Esther bade 4:15 Then Esther bade them return
them return answer unto Mordecai. answer unto Mordecai:
She said to him:
Go, gather together all the Jews, 4:16 ‘Go, gather together all the Jews
and fast ye for me three days. These that are present in Shushan, and fast
were the thirteenth, fourteenth and ye for me, and neither eat nor drink
fifteenth of Nisan. He sent back three days, night or day; I also and my
word to her: But these include the maidens will fast in like manner; and
first day of Passover? She replied: so will I go in unto the king, which
Elder of Israel, why is there a is not according to the law; and if I
Passover? Mordecai thereupon perish, I perish.’
acceded to her request, as it says:
So Mordecai went his way, and did 4:17 So Mordecai went his way, and
according to all that Esther had did according to all that Esther had
commanded him, there they say: commanded him.
that he passed the first festival day
of Passover in a fast.
...
 old wine in new flasks 199

Table 2: (cont.)
Esther Rabbah II Biblical Text (JPS, 1917)
[9:3] Now it came to pass on the 5:1 Now it came to pass on the third
third day. Israel are never left in dire day, that Esther put on her royal
distress more than three days. For so apparel, and stood in the inner court
of Abraham it is written . . . Of of the king’s house . . .
Jacob’s sons we read . . . of Jonah it
says . . . The dead also will come to
life only after three days, as it says . . .
This miracle also was performed
after three days of their fasting, as it
is written: Now it came to pass on the
third day, that Esther put on her royal
apparel
------------------------------------------------
[ part 2] And she sent and invited 5:4 And Esther said: ‘If it seem good
Haman to the banquet on the unto the king, let the king and Haman
fifteenth of Nisan. When they had come this day unto the banquet that I
eaten and drunk Haman said: have prepared for him.’ . . .
The king exalts me, and his wife 5:9 Then went Haman forth that day,
aggrandizes me, and there is none joyful and glad of heart . . .
greater than I am in all the kingdom,
and he rejoiced very much in his
heart, as so it is written: “Then went
Haman forth that day, joyful and glad
of heart.”
------------------------------------------------
[9:3] Haman said moreover: ‘Yea, 5:12 Haman said moreover: ‘Yea,
Esther the queen did let no man Esther the queen did let no man come
come in . . . unto the banquet she had in with the king unto the banquet
prepared but myself There were four that she had prepared but myself; and
who began with af and perished in to-morrow also am I invited by her
af (=moreover/anger), namely, the together with the king.’
serpent, the chief of the bakers, the
assembly of Korah, and Haman . . .
Haman as it is written, Yea, Esther
the queen did let no man come in.’
200 arnon atzmon

commanded him.’ ” The redactor even adds a reference to the hom-

ily found in the Babylonian Talmud: “there they say: that he passed
the first festival day of Passover in a fast.” This is in keeping with
his approach in several other places of combining the Babylonian
tradition with the midrashic tradition of Eretz Yisrael, as a form of
prooftext.28
The redactor placed the second part of the segment, Esther’s
initiative, which is essentially a direct continuation of the previous
part, elsewhere, attached to verse nine of the next chapter. The
redactor situated this part between two, classical exegetical derashot;
both of which have parallels in Midrash Genesis Rabbah, quite possibly
the sources for our midrash, here as well.29 The segment cited from
PDR is set up as an exegetical homily upon verse nine—“Then
went Haman forth that day, joyful and glad of heart . . .”
In addition to fulfilling his aim of glossing the verses with as
many derashot as possible, by situating the derashah here, the redac-
tor created an interesting link to the “Haman who began with af
[moreover/anger]” derashah that immediately follows it. The sen-
tence “Haman said: The king exalts me” cited from PDR is not just
a description of Haman’s state of mind when he left the banquet
“joyful and glad of heart,” it also fits in with the speech Haman
gave to his admirers and Zeresh, his wife, cited afterwards in verses
eleven to twelve: “And Haman recounted unto them [ . . . ] as to how
the king had promoted him, and how he had advanced him above the
princes and servants of the king. Haman said moreover [af ]: ‘Yea,
Esther the queen did let no man come in . . . ’ ” Perhaps for this
reason, Esther Rabbah II reads “Haman said,” and not “Haman said
in his heart.” These words of Haman are taken by the midrash as
prophesying his downfall through his use of the word af—“There
were four who began with af and perished in af.” In other words,
the derashah from PDR sheds light upon its parallel in Genesis Rabbah
and interprets it.

28
Concerning this issue, see my dissertation (fn. 11 above), 146–155.
29
The first derashah—“ ‘Now it came to pass on the third day.’ Israel are never
left in dire distress more than three days.”—has parallels in Genesis Rabbah 56:1
(Theodor-Albeck, 595; Michael Sokolof, Genesis Rabbah Fragments from the Genizah
[ Jerusalem: ha-Akademyah ha-leumit ha-Yiśreelit le-madaim, 5742 (1982)], 136)
and in Genesis Rabbah 91:17 (Theodor-Albeck, 1129). The second derashah—“Haman
said moreover: ‘Yea, Esther the queen did let no man come in [ . . . ]’ There were
four who began with af and perished in af (=moreover/anger), namely [ . . . ]”—has
a parallel in Genesis Rabbah 19 (Theodor-Albeck, 171).
 old wine in new flasks 201

From the discussion until this point, it is clear that due to Esther
Rabbah II ’s redactor’s desire to create a continuously flowing exegeti-
cal-midrashic composition on the verses, the broader system of links
joining the narrative units found in PDR was lost, the meanings of
the phrases: “Haman said in his heart,” “eating and drinking on the
third day,” and so forth. If in PDR we find a clear preference for
privileging the complete narrative structure in place of subordinat-
ing the work to a continuous exegetical-homiletic gloss of the verses,
in Esther Rabbah II the exegetical aim of creating a continuously
flowing exegetical-midrashic composition dictates the fashioning of
the derashot. The question remains whether the redactor of Esther
Rabbah II was simply performing the technical, anthological labor of
collecting diverse sources, or whether he was engaged in the care-
fully calculated labor of combining autonomous midrashic units
that possessed a complex web of links with each other. Throughout
this article, the latter presumption seems to have been implied;
however, this is not the place to enter into the complex discussion
concerning the relationship between midrashim and anthologies.

Neoclassical Midrash—A General Overview

The distinction shared by the two, purportedly neoclassical

midrashim cited herein, Exodus Rabbah I and Esther Rabbah II, is that
of having been created to fill the gap left by a classical midrash
which ended in a preemptory fashion or whose ending may have
been lost. Thus, perhaps these examples do not testify to the neo-
classical phenomenon I have described; rather, they are each the
result of independent, unrelated, chance occurrence. This notwith-
standing, other findings indicate a possible link between these two
works. A link that suggests they may have been the results of a
broader trend.
Scholarly consensus dates both compositions mentioned above to
the turn of the tenth and eleventh centuries, and an investigation
of their dissemination patterns shows similar findings: they mainly
circulated in twelfth and thirteenth century Spain, perhaps also in
Provence, however not in France and Ashkenaz.30 These findings lend

30
Regarding the dissemination pattern of Shemot Rabbah I, see Shinan’s intro-
duction (fn. 9 above), 23 (See too Marc Bregman’s reservations in his recently
202 arnon atzmon

support to the notion that the two compositions are related, and
may be products of the same phenomenon.
Arguing that there was a trend to return to midrash’s early, classi-
cal, exegetical structure surprises because general scholarly consen-
sus maintains that during this period, the opposite developmental
trend towards ever broader narratives was under way. Therefore, in
the next few paragraphs, I will suggest a few ways of conceptualizing
the phenomenon by analyzing it from within certain literary and
historical perspectives.31
I would like to suggest that the Sitz im Leben of midrashim like
Exodus Rabbah I, Esther Rabbah II, and those similar to them, was
one in which the stature of biblical commentary was ascendant.
As noted above, the dissemination pattern of these two midrashim
point to Spain, and perhaps Provence as their countries of origin.
Uriel Simon has noted that in eleventh century Spain, the genre
of philological-rationalist biblical commentary, divorced from
rabbinic midrash, bloomed significantly.32 I would argue that the
desire to return to the classical midrashic form reflects a tendency
to strengthen the bond between the rabbinic derashot and the bibli-
cal text, an approach designed to strengthen the position of the
midrashic tradition as biblical commentary.33
Perhaps this trend makes common cause with another one appear-
ing in Spain at the time. Marc Bregman studied the process through
which the volumes of Midrash Rabbah on the Torah became a cor-
pus. According to him, even though the only manuscripts in which
all the Rabbah midrashim appear together as a unit are dated late,
close to the print period, in twelfth century Spain there are indica-
tions that such a collection was in use.34 The urge to fill the gaps

published Ph.D. dissertation [fn. 7 above], 171); regarding the circulation pattern
of Esther Rabbah II, see my work (fn. 11 above), 243–253.
31
In this context, we should investigate other midrashim, such as Numbers Rabbah
I, the Midrash on Proverbs, the Midrash on Samuel, the Midrash on Jonah and so forth;
however, such an investigation is beyond the scope of this paper.
32
Uriel Simon, “Parshanut ha-mikra al derekh ha-peshat—ha-askolah ha-
sefaradit” [‘The Spanish School of Biblical Interpretation’], in Moreshet Sepharad
[‘The Sepharadi Legacy’], ed. Haim Beinart ( Jerusalem: Magnes, 5754 [1992]),
95 [Hebrew].
33
Elbaum made a similar argument regarding the blossoming of the antho-
logical genre in this period ( Jacob Elbaum, “Yalkut Shim‘oni and the Medieval
Midrashic Anthology,” Prooftexts 17 (1997): 139–140).
34
Marc Bregman, “Midrash Rabbah and the Medieval Collector Mentality,”
Prooftexts 17 (1997): 67.
 old wine in new flasks 203

between the extant midrashim and create neoclassical midrashim, it

is simple to hypothesize, combined with the trend to create a com-
plete midrashic corpus on the Torah, and even on the Scrolls. This
situation, it is reasonable to assume, foreshadowed the development
of the complete midrashic anthologies on the Bible, like the Yalkut
ha-Makhiri, which the most up-to-date scholarship places in thir-
teenth to fourteenth century Spain. Perhaps, from a broader per-
spective, the three phenomenon, as a group—filling gaps between
the extant midrashim, organizing them in comprehensive collec-
tions, and the later, anthological projects—may be read as a process
intent on summarizing the midrashic period. This process highlights
the strong bond between these midrashim and the biblical verses.
The development of literary genres is neither straightforward
nor linear. Different and even opposing trends oftentimes develop
co-terminously. Alongside the trend of privileging expansive narra-
tive, often seen in later midrash, an opposing trend, highlighting the
exegetical dimension of the rabbinic derashot, is revealed. This latter
trend which gained expression through the creation of neoclassi-
cal midrashim was designed to renew and re-strengthen the bond
between the rabbinic derashot and the biblical text.

Arnon Atzmon, Ph.D. (2006) Bar-Ilan University Ramat-Gan, Israel;

Lecturer at the Department of Talmud at Bar-Ilan University,
Ramat-Gan, Israel. Publications on Talmud and Midrash, including
a forthcoming critical Edition of Midrash Esther Rabbah.