Commentators:Midreshei Halakhah/0

Midreshei Halakhah

This topic has not yet undergone editorial review

This page is a stub.
Please contact us if you would like to assist in its development.

Midreshei Halakhah

Names
Date
Place
Characteristics
Sources
Impacted on

Background¹

General description

• All Midreshei Halakhah follow the order of the Torah’s verses as opposed to the topical organization found in other branches of Tannaitic literature (e.g. Mishnah and Tosefta).
• These midrashim employ various methods of derash (and some peshat interpretation) to derive halakhot from the verses, or to link halakhot to the verses.²
• The text is often dialectical and complex, with frequent obscure statements and arguments.³
• Despite an orientation toward halakhic issues,⁴ the Midreshei Halakhah contain a significant amount of agaddic material as well.

Names

• Common names – ‏מכילתא דרבי ישמעאל, מכילתא דרבי שמעון בר יוחאי, ספרא, ספרי במדבר, ספרי דברים, ספרי זוטא במדבר, ספרי זוטא דברים, מכילתא דברים ‎‏
• Other names – See individual pages for each Midrash.
  

Date

3rd century CE⁵

Place

The Midreshei Halakhah were redacted in Eretz Yisrael, although they also contain teachings from Babylonian sages.⁶

Language

Mishnaic Hebrew⁷

Schools of Midrash Halakhah⁸

Modern scholarship⁹ has identified two distinct schools of Tannaitic midrash within the literature of Midrash Halakhah – the school of R. Yishmael and the school of R. Akiva. Following is a summary of the findings that have come to light in characterizing these schools.

• Methodological differences – Through analysis of the teachings of R. Yishmael and R. Akiva, the founders of the two schools, scholars have discerned consistent differences¹⁰ in approach between these two sages, and between their schools in general.¹¹
  
• R. Yishmael’s approach tends to remain closer to the simple reading of verses than does that of R. Akiva.
• R. Akiva expounds phenomena such as doubled verbs, synonymous nouns, repetitive concluding verses of passages, and repetition of entire passages. On his view, such redundancies are ‘superfluous’ and thus to be expounded to teach something new.
• R. Yishmael views such phenomena as simply the ordinary use of language – “The Torah speaks in human language” – and thus not as a basis for exposition.¹²
• R. Yishmael relies more on rules¹³ and comparisons between verses. R. Akiva focuses more on the individual verse and specific words and letters.
• When using rules of exposition, R. Yishmael tends to limit their application, while R. Akiva employs them more freely.¹⁴
  
• Criteria for differentiating between the schools’ literature – Following are the criteria that led scholars to view the various collections of Midreshei Halakhah as produced by one of the two distinct schools:
• Prevalence of the methods described above
• Terminology characteristic of a particular school¹⁵
• Names of principal sages¹⁶
• Particular expositions that represent the consistent and recurrent opinion of one specific school
• Anonymous statements in a particular collection of Midrash Halakhah that are attributed in other sources to either R. Yishmael or R. Akiva
• Attribution of particular midrash collections to specific schools
• School of R. Akiva – ‏‏‏מכילתא דרבי שמעון בר יוחאי, ספרא¹⁷‏ , ספרי דברים, ספרי זוטא במדבר, ספרי זוטא דברים¹⁸
• School of R. Yishmael – מכילתא דרבי ישמעאל, ספרא¹⁹, ספרי במדבר, מכילתא דברים

Text

• Manuscripts –
• Printings –
• Textual layers –

Content

Genre

• – 

Structure

• – 

Characteristics

• – 

Sources

Significant Influences

• – 

Occasional Usage

• –

Possible Relationship

• – 

Impact

Other Midrashim -

• – 

Medieval Exegetes

• – 

Supercommentaries

• – 

¹ This section incorporates information from M. Kahana, "The Halakhic Midrashim" in The Literature of the Sages Part II, ed. Safrai et al. (Assen, 2006): 3-105 (hereafter: Kahana).

² See Kahana: 7, note 19, regarding the scholarly debate as to what extent the sages of the Midrash derived new halakhot through their derash methods, or simply drew support for pre-existing laws.

³ It is often helpful for the learner to peruse parallel Talmudic passages (which are indicated in various editions of the midrashim), and to use Rashi and other Talmud commentaries to help hash out the meaning, bearing in mind that the midrash text may not be saying exactly the same thing as a parallel baraita in the Talmud.

⁴ Which is often expressed by a Midrash skipping over narrative sections of the Torah.

⁵ See Kahana: 60-62 for a summary of arguments against views that place the redaction of the Midreshei Halakhah in the 5th, or even 8th, century. And see below, Language.

⁶ This location is supported by a number of arguments, including (See Kahana:62-63):

• The language of the Midreshei Halakhah is similar to that of Mishnah and Tosefta.
• The parallels to Midreshei Halakhah appearing in the Talmud Yerushalmi, and Midreshei Aggadah from Eretz Yisrael, are more similar than those appearing in Babylonian sources.
• The Midreshei Halakhah divide the Torah into portions following the reading practice in Eretz Yisrael.
• When literary units are cited out of their original location, no editorial attempt is made to adapt them to the new location (in contrast to the practice of the redactors of the Talmud Bavli).

⁷ See Kahana: 61, where he argues that the lack of any influence of Galilean Aramaic on the language of the Midreshei Halakhah in general precludes the 5th century redaction date proposed by some scholars.

⁸ This section is based on Kahana: 17-39.

⁹ Beginning with R. David Zvi Hoffmann.

¹⁰ The distinctions listed below represent consistent trends, though these are not across-the-board rules, and exceptions do exist.

¹¹ Sometimes the schools only differ in how a halakhah is derived from the verses, while arriving at the same halakhic outcome.

¹² There are instances, however, where a Midrash Halakhah associated with the school of R. Yishmael expounds the repetition of similar verses in different passages. This may reflect some disagreement within the school regarding the status of this type of repetition. See Kahana: 22.

¹³ Such as those in the baraita of the thirteen rules of Torah exposition (י"ג מידות שהתורה נדרשת בהן), appearing in R. Yishmael’s name at the beginning of Sifra.

¹⁴ For example:

• R. Yishmael allows the use of Gezerah Shavah only if it is a case of מופנה מצד אחד – meaning at least one of the relevant words must not have already been used to teach something else. R. Akiva states that this is not a necessary condition (see Yerushalmi Yoma 8:3).
• R. Yishmael does not allow “lamed min halamed” – a deduction that is based on something that itself was a mere deduction from Scripture. R. Akiva allows such a deduction.
• R. Yishmael holds אין עונשין מן הדין (punishments cannot be derived from logic), while R. Akiva allows such a derivation. See Kahana: 23-24, notes 88-91.

¹⁵ See Kahana: 27, note 108.

¹⁶ Midrashim associated with the school of R. Yishmael cite many teachings of R. Yishmael himself and some of his leading students, especially R. Yoshia, R. Yonatan, R. Natan, and R. Yitzchak. These sages are rarely mentioned in texts associated with the school of R. Akiva, which often mention the latter’s leading disciples.

¹⁷ The main portion. There are several large additions that belong to the school of R. Yishmael. See the page for Sifra.

¹⁸ Sifre Zuta Bemidbar and Sifre Zuta Devarim form a subcategory within the school of R. Akiva, displaying unique linguistic characteristics and other  distinct traits. See Kahana: 5.

¹⁹ The several large additions to Sifra are attributed to R. Yishmael, but not the main portion. See the page for Sifra.