Midrash Methodology: Clash of the Titans (Og vs. Moshe)

Have you ever heard how Moshe killed the ten cubit tall Og? If so, have you ever heard an interpretation of this midrash by a Rishon? Here's the Rashba's take on this midrash and his methodology.

Aug 05, 2015

Originally posted in January 2012.

Artwork: *Bearer of the Heavens*, by Ryan Alexander Lee

Introduction

There are certain aggados and midrashim which enjoy tremendous popularity, for better or for worse. One of these well-known aggados depicts an epic battle between a giant Og, King of Bashan, and Moshe Rabbeinu, who - according to the literal reading of the text - was also a giant. Here is the text of that aggadah in full, as stated in Berachos 54b:

[Og, the King of Bashan,] said: How large is the camp of Israel? Three parasangs (approximately eight miles). I will go and uproot a mountain of the size of three parasangs and cast it upon them and kill them. He went and uprooted a mountain of the size of three parasangs and carried it on his head. But Ha'Kadosh Baruch Hu sent grasshoppers which bored a hole in it, so that it sank around his neck. He tried to pull it off, but his teeth projected on each side, and he could not pull it off. This is referred to in the text, “You have broken the teeth of the wicked” (Tehilim 3:8), as explained by Reish Lakish, for Reish Lakish said: What is the meaning of the text, “You have broken the teeth of the wicked”? Do not read, “shibarta” (“You have broken”) but “shirvavta” (“You have elongated”). Moses was ten cubits tall (approximately 18 feet). He took an axe ten cubits long, leapt ten cubits into the air, and struck him on his ankle and killed him.

Pretty wild-sounding, eh? Thankfully, we can enlist the aid of the Rashba - a preeminent Rishon who wrote an extensive commentary on dozens of Talmudic midreshei aggadah, including this one. Our goal in this post will be two-fold: (1) to understand the Rashba's explanation of this midrash, and (2) to glean several principles of methodology which we can apply when learning other aggados and midrashim.

Methodology Principle #1: Deceptively Simple Midrashim

The Rashba prefaces his explanation of our aggadah as follows:

First I will make a statement about the aggados which can be found in the Talmud and in the midrashim. Know that some aggados are written in a deep language for many reasons. Sometimes you will find that the Sages alluded to an exceedingly simple idea or unnecessary idea, but nevertheless expressed it in a strange and very deep language, causing the onlooker to think that it contains an esoteric concept or a matter that was necessary to conceal, when this is not the case.

The Rashba then goes on to list three reasons why Chazal would go out of their way to express "exceedingly simple ideas" in such cryptic language. I would cite this portion of the Rashba, but I fear it would take us on a tangent. We'll save that discussion for another time.

The Rashba concludes by translating his point into practical terms:

Therefore, when you find me explaining the words of an aggadah and you think that it must be expressing an abstract idea - due to its subtle language and cryptic formulation - and yet, I explain that it comes to teach very simple concepts, do not dogmatically assert that it is impossible for Chazal to conceal such a simple idea in such language, for I have already shown you this feature of their style in aggados.

The methodology principle we gain from this may be stated as follows: Just because a midrash looks like it contains a deep idea doesn't necessarily mean that it actually contains a deep idea. It is entirely possible that a subtly or fantastically worded midrash contains nothing but "an exceedingly simple or unnecessary idea."

(Note: This is a perfect example of why it is so important to learn midrashim under the guidance of the Rishonim. I would never be able to learn enough midrashim to arrive at such a conclusion.)

Methodology Principle #2: Allegorical Fluency

The Rashba then explains that in order to "decode" our midrash, we need to be familiar with certain facts and mashalim (metaphors) from two other sources. The first is another midrash about Og, found in Niddah 61a (note that Rashba's version of the text is slightly different than ours):

“And Hashem said to Moshe: ‘Do not fear him [i.e. Og, King of Bashan]!’” (Bamidbar 21:34). Considering the fact that Sihon and Og were brothers, why was it that Moshe feared Og while he did not fear Sichon? From the answer that was given by Ha'Kadosh Baruch Hu, you may recognize what was in the mind of that tzadik (i.e. Moshe); this teaches that Moshe was afraid that perhaps the merit of Avraham would stand by for Og, as it is stated, “And there came the one that had escaped and told Avram the Hebrew” (Bereishis 14:13), and Mar said: “This refers to Og, who escaped from the Flood.” Hashem said to Moshe: “Do not fear him, for I have given him over to your hand.”

Og earned a zechus (merit) for informing Avraham that Lot was being held captive. This, in turn, prompted Avraham to go on a rescue mission which proved successful. Moshe was afraid that the hashgachah (Divine providence) would protect Og on account of this zechus. Hashem reassured Moshe that there was nothing to fear.

The second source we need to be familiar with is the allegorical language used by the Neviim in reference to the Avos. For example, the Navi says, "Arise and contend before the mountains, and let the hills hear your voice!" (Michah 6:1). According to the Rashba, the Navi is exhorting to Bnei Yisrael to learn from Avraham, as it is stated, "Look to the rock from which you were hewn, and at the hollow of the pit from which you were dug; look to Avraham your forefather and to Sarah who bore you" (Yishaya 51:1-2). According to the Rashba, the depiction of Avos as mountains is used throughout Tanach and the words of Chazal.

The methodology principle we gain from this may be stated as follows: Do not assume that a midrash or aggadah is "self-contained," for it may require familiarity with other sources in order to decode its meaning.

The Main Idea of Our Aggadah

With these two keys in hand, the Rashba commences his explanation of our aggadah:

Therefore, Moshe was afraid that the zechus of Avraham would stand by for Og - and this is the very thought that Og had. He said: "Since this nation - in spite of its massive camp which spans three parasangs - is only powerful on account of the zechus of their forefather [Avraham], and since I preceded them in [my] zechus of Avraham, therefore I will be able to uproot that 'mountain' (i.e. the zechus of Avraham which protected Bnei Yisrael) from them and I will be assisted [by the hashgachah] in overturning it upon them."

In other words, there was no actual mountain. Rather, the "mountain" Og sought to overturn is a mashal for the zechus of Avraham which protected Bnei Yisrael. Og believed he could overcome the zechus of Bnei Yisrael due to his own zechus of Avraham.

The Rashba continues his explanation:

The "grasshoppers" that came and bored a hole in the mountain is a mashal for the Jews, who - like grasshoppers - had their power in their tongues, as the midrash states: "'[Now the congregation will lick up our entire surroundings,] as an ox licks up the greenery of the field' (Bamidbar 22:4) - just as an ox's power is in its tongue, so too, the power of the Jews is in their tongue" (Tanchuma: Balak 3). This means to say that through the prayers and supplications of the Jews, the zechus of Avraham their forefather will remain with them and will not assist Og; instead, it will overturn his zechus upon him - as represented by the mountain falling around his neck and breaking his teeth.

As we know from the tefilos of Rosh ha'Shanah and Yom ha'Kippurim, "Teshuvah, tefilah, and tzedakah can tear up the bad decree." Even if Og had zechus from Avraham which would have aided him, the tefilos of the Jews would overturn his zechus and foil his plans. (Once again, we see that the decoding of this aggadah requires familiarity with the allegorical language from another source: the Midrash Tanchuma.)

The Rashba continues:

Due to the fact that Og was a powerful king and was naturally strong, the Jews would not have been able to withstand him - all the more so, since the zechus of Avraham would have made it impossible for the Jews to approach him. It was therefore necessary for Moshe [to invoke] in his tefilah his own zechus, and the zechus of the the Twelve Tribes, and the zechus of all the Avos - namely, Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov. This is what was meant by the statement: "Moshe was ten cubits tall. He took a ten cubit axe and leapt ten cubits into the air." In other words, "Moshe was ten cubits tall" refers to his own zechus. The "axe" that he took is an allusion to the nation as a whole, who was there with him; since they were there with him, they are metaphorically depicted as a tool in his hand which he could use. "He leapt ten cubits into the air" refers to the zechus of the Avos (peace be upon them); therefore, Moshe is metaphorically depicted as someone who leaps upwards, since he needed to "jump up" to the zechus of the Avos, who lived at an earlier time in history. And afterwards it explains why all of this was necessary: "to strike Og on his ankle," namely, to nullify the zechus he had earned by taking steps - using his ankles - for the sake of Avraham.

Apparently, even though Og was not by any means a tzadik, his zechus from Avraham was sufficient to grant him hashgachic protection from Bnei Yisrael to the extent that Moshe needed to combine his own zechus with the zechus of Bnei Yisrael, the zechus of all the Avos, and the zechus of tefilah in order to nullify Og's zechus.

I sense that there is a lot to be learned from here about how hashgachah works. Many of us would probably feel safe placing our bets on Bnei Yisrael's zechus beating any zechus that Og might have earned - and yet, Moshe Rabbeinu was apprehensive, and he knew WAY more about hashgachah than we do. If there is one thing I have learned from this aggadah, it's that I know even less about the workings of hashgachah than I did before I learned this aggadah!

Methodology Principle #3: Detail for the Sake of Detail

Rashba then explains the significance of the "ten cubits":

They said "Moshe was ten cubits tall" because this was Moshe Rabbeinu's height, as mentioned in Shabbos (92a). For this reason, all of the measurements were listed as ten - not because all of the measurements were necessary, but only for the sake of the allegory, for Og is allegorically depicted as having an incredibly large stature to such a degree that he was able to uproot a mountain measuring three parasangs in length and to carry it on his head. Therefore, the height of his ankle is allegorically depicted as thirty cubits - for such is the style of allegories, to incorporate particulars which fit nicely into the allegory intended by the pesukim or the Sages. Likewise, "He went and uprooted a mountain of the size of three parasangs and carried it on his head" - all of these matters [were incorporated because they] nicely fit into the structure of the allegory, and not for any other reason.

Here the Rashba gives us another important methodology principle for interpreting midrashim: In some cases the nuances of a midrash have ideational content and significance, but in other cases, the details are just included for the sake of completing and beautifying the allegory.

The Rambam mentions the same principle in his introduction to the Moreh ha'Nevuchim:

You must well understand what I have said, for it is a principle of the utmost importance with respect to those things which I intend to expound. If you observe in one of the chapters that I explained the meaning of a certain allegory and pointed out to you its general scope, do not trouble yourself further in order to find an interpretation of each separate particular, for that would lead you to one of the two following erroneous courses: either you will miss the sense included in the metaphor, or you will be induced to explain certain things which require no explanation, and which are not introduced for that purpose. Through this unnecessary trouble you may fall into the great error which besets most modern sects in their foolish writings and discussions: they all endeavor to find some hidden meaning in expressions which were never uttered by the author in that sense. Your goal should be to discover in most of the allegories the general idea which the author wishes to express.

Presumably, the more one learns, the better intuition one develops for discerning whether an allegorical detail has ideational significance or whether it's just there as filler.

(Incidentally, I have a hard time believing that Moshe Rabbeinu was actually ten cubits tall, in spite of what the Gemara in Shabbos 92a says. That Gemara must either be another metaphor or it must be hyperbole.)

Summary

Thanks to the Rashba, we have learned three methodological principles from this aggadah:

Do not assume that every aggadah contains a deep idea, despite its cryptic formulation; it may be that the idea is "simple or unnecessary," but Chazal nevertheless expressed it in a complex manner.
Do not assume that every aggadah can be interpreted on its own; it may be that in order to decode an aggadah, one must be familiar with ideas, facts, or metaphors from other sources in Tanach or Chazal.
Do not assume that every detail of the aggadah contains ideas; it may be that the details and nuances were included solely for the purpose of beautifying or completing the allegory.

We also learned a valuable lesson about how zechus works, namely, a little zechus can go a long way. Og was not a tzadik like Moshe Rabbeinu, nor was he a member of Klal Yisrael - and yet, the zechus he earned by helping Avraham was so great that even Moshe was afraid that he wouldn't be able to defeat him.

Have you heard other compelling explanations of this midrash, in part or in whole? Let me know in the comments!

The Rabbi Schneeweiss Substack

Discussion about this post