Psalm 72 and Micah 5:1

The Babylonian Talmud (Pesachim 54b, Nedarim 39b) lists seven things which are so much a part of the fabric of the universe that their origins precede creation. No Jew could imagine a universe without Torah, or without the concepts of repentance and reward and punishment – and therefore these must have existed before the creation of the rest of the world. As Rabbeinu Nissim explains, “It is impossible to have a world without them!” Strangely, however, the Midrashic traditions include the identity of the Messiah as something which precedes the dawn of time as well, despite the fact that (a) as a human being with biological parents, it is difficult to imagine what it means that the Messiah’s identity precedes creation, (b) were it not for the sins of Israel (an event that surely followed creation of the world) there would be no need for a Messiah to redeem them in the first place, and (c) many human beings have held the title of Messiah, and had the story of the world and the sins of mankind gone differently, the actual identity of the Messiah would have changed, and not remained constant.¹

Taking a step back, an essential question in the study of any tradition or Midrash is whether the teaching is best understood as being designed to convey a philosophical or theological truth or as designed to provide the best interpretation of a challenging biblical verse. At times, the key to understanding a difficult Midrash is realizing that the Midrash in question exists to elucidate a difficult or challenging biblical verse and not to convey a point in Jewish theology. This essay will take the approach that this otherwise difficult Midrash about the identity of the Messiah is actually designed to interpret a difficult biblical verse, and not to convey a point in Jewish thought. Thus, we must be responsive to the Bible in our interpretation, instead of considering how the Midrash relates to Jewish thought.

We will investigate the biblical verses that serve as the underlying basis of the Midrash in an attempt to understand its greater meaning. This task will first bring us to the difficult Psalm 72, which the Midrash itself cites as its source – and then proceed to investigate other verses that might have provided an alternative inspiration for the Midrash.

A key aspect to any study of Midrash is recognizing that Midrashim often appear to be written in response to specific biblical verses, when they are in actuality based on other verses, not cited in the specific Midrash. Though it is not entirely clear why the Midrash would choose to cite other verses in place of its actual sources, the phenomenon is a self-evident aspect of understanding Midrash, as can be attested to by numerous examples.²

Psalm 72

The 72nd Psalm is challenging on account of its content, its genre, its authorship, and its use of language. Most Psalms begin with a title that identifies the author, and – at times – the occasion of the Psalm. Though some controversy exists as to identifying the exact identity of some of the authors,³ the rough cast of authors of the Psalms are otherwise well-known, and recur throughout the Psalms (David, Asaf, sons of Korach – see especially I Chronicles chapters 15-16, 25). A minority of the Psalms specify an occasion⁴ (3, 18, 30, 34, 51-60,⁵ 63, 142 and the perplexing 137⁶), but the bulk of the Psalms in the first section of the book through chapter 89 (and also 138-144) specify an author.

The first word of Psalm 72 reads To Solomon, but is Solomon the author (Targum, opinion cited by Tosafot, TB Bava Batra 15a)? In that case he would be the latest named author in the entire work. Or, perhaps Solomon is the topic of the Psalm instead (Rashi, Ibn Ezra, Radak)? In that case this Psalm would be a rare one which fails to list its author.⁷ Either reading requires us to accept that this Psalm does not follow the expectations of its genre: because of the late author, or because of the absence of an author entirely. The best reading of the verse is that Solomon is the subject of the Psalm, which goes without an author. A similar challenge exists regarding Psalm 127:1, To Solomon, and also in Psalms 90-91 and Psalm 92.⁸

Besides the unusual presentation of author and subject in Psalm 72, the genre or topic of this Psalm also differs from the bulk of the Psalms. Most of the Psalms in the first half of the book are concerned with prayer and thanksgiving in difficult times, while most of the Psalms of the end of the book are focused on pure praise of the Almighty. Yet, the topic of this Psalm is neither of the conventional ones, with its focus on a human king. It stands out as one of a handful whose subject is a human king, and thus breaks the typical convention in a second way (along with 2,⁹ and 45).¹⁰

Besides the explicit identification of Solomon as the subject in 72:1, there is reason to think that this Psalm is about the emerging monarchy of Solomon on account of the location of this Psalm within the larger book of Psalms. The Psalms were divided into five divisions already in ancient times (according to the start of Midrash Shocher Tov), and a concluding blessing and affirmation concludes each section besides the last (Ps. 41:4, 72:18-19, 89:53, 106:48). Each of the five sections has a unique character. The final two sections are unique in that they consist mostly of unnamed Psalms that are pure praises, while the first two divisions are petitions and thanksgiving Psalms attributed to named authors. The third book is mostly the Psalms of Asaf, and the first two almost exclusively the Psalms of David. Thus, Psalm 72 ends the second of the five divisions with the words Blessed is the Lord, God, God of Israel who alone does wondrous things; Blessed is His glorious name forever; His glory fills the whole world. Amen and Amen. End of the prayers of David son of Jesse (Ps. 72:18-20). Psalm 72, thus, sits at the end of the bulk of the Davidic compositions, and fits as a transition from the elderly king to his son, the next king.¹¹

The Psalm recounts the many virtues of the prince and future king. He will judge fairly and remove oppression of the poor from the land (72:1-4, 72:12-14), will rule widely and in peace (72:5-9), and many foreign governments and kingdoms will visit bearing gifts (72:10-11). The Psalm ends powerfully with a praise of the king (72:15-17): So let him live and receive gold of Sheba; let prayers for him be said always; blessings on him invoked at all times. Let abundant grain be in the land, to the tops of the mountains; let his crop thrive like the forest of Lebanon; and let men sprout up in towns like country grass. May his name be eternal, before the sun may his name be great (Yinon).¹²

This Psalm accurately describes some of the highlights of the early years of Solomon’s rule: fair judgment of the lower classes (I Kgs. 3:16-28), vast empire with great peace (5:1-6), and visiting nations bearing gifts, including the gold of Sheba (10:1-29), as noted by Rashi (72:7) and Radak throughout the chapter. Whether it is a blessing, prayer, or prediction of the king before his reign, or a song of thanks written during his reign, there is no reason to doubt the chapter speaks of Solomon and his great deeds. To summarize our brief study of this Psalm: there is no reason to think it speaks about the Messiah at all, and surely no reason to think that it bears any relevance to the origins of the Messiah.

The Primordial Messiah

Though the simple reading of this chapter speaks of Solomon, TB Pesachim 54a says it refers to the Messiah: “Seven things were created before the creation of the world: Torah and Repentance, and the Garden of Eden and Gehenom [the underworld], and the throne of Glory and the Temple, and the name (or, identity) of the Messiah.” This list appears in variation in a number of other Midrashim as well.¹³ The Talmud explains: “Torah, as it says: The Lord created me at the beginning of His course (Prov. 8:22, translating as per Rashi Gen. 14:19). Repentance, as it says: Before the mountains came into being . . . You decreed: repent you mortals! (Ps. 90:2-3). Garden of Eden, as it says The Lord God, planted a garden in Eden from before (2:8; the simple reading of “Mi-Kedem” is “in the east,” but the Talmud clearly intends to read this as “from before.” See also TB Ketubot 8a and commentaries). Gehenom, as it says: Tiftfeh¹⁴ has been prepared from yesterday (Isa. 30:33). Throne and Temple, as it says Throne of Glory, exalted from the first, the place of our Temple (Jer. 17:12).¹⁵ The name of the Messiah: as it says May his name be eternal, before the sun [was created] may his name be great (Yinon).“

As we have already noted, the Talmud’s conclusion is shocking! Psalm 72 does not speak of the Messiah explicitly, and few commentaries believe it is describing the Messiah even implicitly (see Targum and Radak; if it is about the Messiah, then one would also argue that Solomon is also a name for the Messiah). Even were the chapter referring to the Messiah, the verse only says that his name comes before the sun, and not that his name comes from primordial times. A series of later teachings expand and connect other parts of the chapter to the Messianic era (TB Sanhedrin 99a, citing 72:5)¹⁶ but this reading is truly difficult.

As an aside, we should note that it is also unclear how the Talmud understood the word “Yinon.” The Talmud may well have understood this word as a verb, which is the simple reading of the text – the Messiah’s name will “Yinon.” The students of Yanai understood the word generations later as a proper noun (TB Sanhedrin 98b, Lamentations Rabbah to 1:16), “His name is Yinon.” Yet this is a later teaching, one disputed by other rabbis who offer different names for the Messiah.¹⁷ It is unclear why “Yinon” would be the chosen name for the Messiah. Maharsha (TB Nedarim loc. cit.) explains that it is a word-play on the Tetragrammaton, with the later Nun (numerical value 50) taking the place of the letter Hey (numerical value 5).

Closer inspection of these texts reveals that the various primordial creations appear to be linked through the use of very specific key words to refer to an era before time. Perhaps the key words are more important than any other aspect of these creations. One such key word is “kedem;”¹⁸ the verse in Proverbs continues that the Torah is “kedem,” before, and the verse describing the Garden of Eden also uses the word kedem. The verse of Gehenom uses the word “etmol,” yesterday; the verse of the Temple, “me-rishon” or “olam.” Our true mission should be to find a verse elsewhere in the Bible which applies one of these key words to the Messiah, which had inspired the midrashic teaching.

Micah 5:1

While Psalm 72 does not seem to speak of the Messiah or localize his origins at the dawn of time, Micah 5:1 does convey this sense: And you (from) Bethlehem of Ephrath, least among the clans of Judah, from you one shall come forth to rule Israel for Me – one whose origin is from of old (kedem), from ancient times. The entire chapter speaks of a Messianic era,¹⁹ and of a future descendant from the Davidic line. The verse is explicit that the origin of the Messiah is from the dawn of time and uses the same key word – kedem – which appeared in the context of two of the other six primordial creations.

It is self-evident that the author of the Midrash had this verse in mind as the true inspiration for the teaching that the Messiah emerges from the dawn of time, and indeed one version of the Midrash (Pirkei d’Rebbi Eliezer 3) preserves this second proof text. Moreover, Rashi in his commentary to Micah also understood this verse in the same way as the Talmud’s Yinon shemo, even though his commentary to Psalms reads the verse in a different way. This is yet another example of a situation where a Midrash has one proof text in mind which goes uncited, but clearly inspired the teaching.

One cannot help but wonder if the resistance to using Micah 5:1 was the result of polemical considerations. After all, once the Christians associated the origins of their own primordial messiah and deity to the city of Bethlehem, Jews would be skittish about discussing their Messiah in the context of Micah 5:1. Indeed, Radak explicitly rejects Christian readings of this verse (such as in John 7:42) in his commentary. And especially given that Christians believed their Messiah was divine and hence preceded the world, Jews would hesitate to do anything that might be seen as corroborating that position. For this reason, the Talmud and Midrash only noted that the name of the Messiah was eternal, but not that the human Messianic person had existed from the dawn of time.

There are numerous examples of cases where Jewish commentaries refuted or avoided Christological interpretations of biblical verses, and they have been documented and discussed in the general literature.²⁰ Our example is unique in that the core teaching remains in the Midrash and is not rejected – it is merely the source for the teaching which has been moved from one text to another.

Of Midrash and Source

The Midrash often has knowledge of other biblical verses in mind when sharing a teaching, and often the apparent cited source is not the true source in actuality. There are numerous examples of this phenomenon, and our case is yet another example. A midrashic teaching which appears throughout the ranks of Midrash has its true basis in Micah but is consistently cited via Psalm 72. Astute readers of the Midrash recognize that the prooftext cited is never the end of the story. In this case, there is a specific reason why the conventional midrashim eschewed the true prooftext, although thankfully one source does preserve the actual source of the midrashic teaching.