Commentators:Midreshei Halakhah/0

From AlHaTorah.org
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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.14


 

Text

  • Manuscripts –
  • Printings –
  • Textual layers –

Content

Genre

  • – 

Structure

  • – 

Characteristics

  • – 

Sources

Significant Influences

  • – 

Occasional Usage

Possible Relationship

  • – 

Impact

Other Midrashim -

  • – 

Medieval Exegetes

  • – 

Supercommentaries

  • –