Rabbinic interpretations of biblical texts exhibit a striking paradox: they frequently contradict the very scriptures they aim to explain. This apparent tension reflects a sophisticated system of "value-concepts" - abstract rabbinic ideas that resist precise definition and connect through organismic rather than logical relationships. Through comparative analysis of biblical and midrashic interpretations, including the forty-year wilderness wandering and the Sisera-Jael narrative, patterns emerge showing how haggadic literature cultivates qualified belief rather than demanding complete assent or dissent. Textual analysis of rabbinic terminology and its biblical antecedents reveals that while rabbinic concepts remain rooted in biblical sources, they constitute a new organismic level that emerged as an integrated complex. This framework shares a common universe of discourse with the Bible while maintaining remarkable interpretive flexibility. The resulting indeterminacy distinguishes midrashic interpretation from philosophical or allegorical approaches, creating a unique literary form without parallel in interpretive traditions - one that embraces multiple, even contradictory, readings of the same biblical texts.