Midrash halakha

Midrash halakha(Hebrew:הֲלָכָה) was the ancientJudaic rabbinicmethod ofTorah studythat expounded upon the traditionally received613 Mitzvot(commandments) by identifying their sources in theHebrew Bible,and by interpreting these passages as proofs of the laws' authenticity.

The termmidrash halakhais also applied to the derivation of new laws, either by means of a correct interpretation of the obvious meaning of scriptural words themselves or by the application of certainhermeneuticrules.

The wordmidrashis rooted in the termdrash,literally "seek," or "enquire," but practically meaning exposition.^[1]Midrashis then "that which has been expounded," or more simply, a work focused on rabbinic exposition (of theTorahor of Torah based laws and ethics).^[2]^[3]The word is applied only to compilations ofTannaic midrashor to theTannaicexposition process.^[4]^[5]

However, the common termmidrashused by itself has come to be a shorthand for the termmidrash aggadahwhich, in contrast tomidrash halakha,are non-legaltannaicexpositions that are based on the Bible.Midrash halakhais notaggadic,sometimes resulting in confusion with the common shorthand meaning ofmidrash.Instead, the product ofmidrash halakhaare legal works, primarilyMishnahandBeraisa.

Terminology[edit]

The phrase "Midrash halakha" was first employed byNachman Krochmal,^[6]theTalmudicexpression beingMidrash Torah= "investigation of theTorah".^[7]These interpretations were often regarded as corresponding to the real meaning of the scriptural texts; thus it was held that a correct elucidation of the Torah carried with it the proof of thehalakhaand the reason for its existence.

Types[edit]

In themidrash halakhathree divisions may be distinguished:

Themidrashof the olderhalakha,that is, themidrashof the Soferim and theTannaimof the first two generations;
Themidrashof the youngerhalakha,or themidrashof theTannaimof the three following generations;
Themidrashof several youngerTannaimand of manyAmoraimwho did not interpret a biblical passage as an actual proof of thehalakha,but merely as a suggestion or a support for it (zekher le-davar;asmakhta).

The Midrash of the olderhalakha[edit]

The olderhalakhasought only to define the compass and scope of individual laws, asking under what circumstances of practical life a given rule was to be applied and what would be its consequences. The oldermidrash,therefore, aims at an exact definition of the laws contained in the scriptures by an accurate interpretation of the text and a correct determination of the meaning of the various words. The form ofexegesisadopted is frequently one of simplelexicography,and is remarkably brief.

A few examples will serve to illustrate the style of the oldermidrash halakha.It translates the wordra'ah(Exodus 21:8) "displease" (Mekhilta,Mishpatim), which is contrary to the interpretation of RabbiEliezer.From the expressionbe-miksat(Exodus 12:4), which, according to it, can mean only "number," the olderhalakhadeduces the rule that when killing thePassover lambthe slaughterer must be aware of the number of persons who are about to partake of it.^[8]

The statement that the determination of the calendar of feasts depends wholly on the decision of theNasiand his council is derived from Leviticus 23:37, the defectively writtenotam(them) being read asattem(you) and the interpretation, "which you shall proclaim," being regarded as conforming to the original meaning of the phrase.^[9]When two different forms of the same word in a given passage have been transmitted, one written in the text (ketib), and the other being the traditional reading (qere), thehalakha,not wishing to designate either as wrong, interprets the word in such a way that both forms may be regarded as correct. Thus it explains Leviticus 25:30-where according to theqerethe meaning is "in the walled city," but according to theketib,"in the city that is not walled" -as referring to a city that once had walls, but no longer has them.^[10]In a similar way it explains Leviticus 11:29.^[11]According to Krochmal,^[12]theketibwas due to the Soferim themselves, who desired that the interpretation given by thehalakhamight be contained in the text; for example, in the case ofotamandattemnoted above, they intentionally omitted the lettervav.

The Midrash of the youngerhalakha[edit]

The youngerhalakhadid not confine itself to the mere literal meaning of single passages, but sought to draw conclusions from the wording of the texts in question by logical deductions, by combinations with other passages, etc. Hence itsmidrashdiffers from the simpleexegesisof the olderhalakha.It treats the Bible according to certain general principles, which in the course of time became more and more amplified and developed (seeTalmud); and its interpretations depart further and further from the simple meaning of the words.

A few examples will illustrate this difference in the method of interpretation between the older and the youngerhalakhah.It was a generally accepted opinion that the firstPassovercelebrated in Egypt, that of theExodus,differed from those that followed it, in that at the first one the prohibition of leavened bread was for a single day only, whereas at subsequent Passovers this restriction extended to seven days. The olderhalakha^[13]represented by R.Jose the Galilean,bases its interpretation on a different division of the sentences in Exodus 13 than the one generally received; connecting the wordha-yom(= "this day", the first word of verse 13:4) with verse 13:3 and so making the passage read: "There shall no leavened bread be eaten this day." The youngerhalakhareadsha-yomwith verse 13:4, and finds its support for the traditionalhalakhaby means of the principle ofsemukot(collocation); that is to say, the two sentences, "There shall no leavened bread be eaten," and "This day came ye out," though they are separated grammatically, are immediately contiguous in the text, and exert an influence over each other.^[14]What the olderhalakharegarded as the obvious meaning of the words of the text, the younger infers from the collocation of the sentences.

The wide divergence between the simple exegesis of the olderhalakhaand the artificiality of the younger is illustrated also by the difference in the method of explaining the Law, cited above, in regard to uncleanness. Bothhalakhotregard it as self-evident that if a man is unclean, whether it be from contact with a corpse or from any other cause, he may not share in the Passover.^[15]The youngerhalakha,despite the dot over the ה, readsrechokahand makes it refer toderekh( "road" or "way" ) even determining how far away one must be to be excluded from participation in the feast. However, to find a ground for thehalakhathat those who are unclean through contact with other objects than a corpse may have no share in the Passover, it explains the repetition of the wordishin this passage (Leviticus 9 10) as intending to include all other cases of defilement.

Despite this difference in method, themidrashimof the older and of the youngerhalakhaalike believed that they had sought only the true meaning of the scriptures. Their interpretations and deductions appeared to them to be really contained in the text; and they wished them to be considered correct biblical expositions. Hence they both have the form of scriptural exegesis, in that each mentions the biblical passage and thehalakhathat explains it, or, more correctly, derives from it.

Abstract and Midrashhalakha[edit]

It is to a law stated in this form—i.e., together with the biblical passage it derives from—that the namemidrashapplies, whereas one that, though ultimately based on the Bible, is cited independently as an established statute is called ahalakha.Collections of halakhot of the second sort are theMishnahand theTosefta;compilations of the first sort are thehalakhic midrashim.This name they receive to distinguish them from thehaggadic midrashim,since they containhalakhotfor the most part, although there arehaggadicportions in them. In these collections the line between independenthalakhaandmidrash halakhais not sharply drawn.

Many mishnayot (single paragraph units) in the Mishnah and in the Tosefta aremidrashichalakhot.^[16]On the other hand, thehalakhic midrashimcontain independent halakhot without statements of their scriptural bases.^[17]This confusion is explained by the fact that the redactors of the two forms of halakhot borrowed passages from one another.^[18]

The schools of R. Akiva and R' Ishmael[edit]

Since thehalakhic midrashimhad for their secondary purpose the exegesis of the Bible, they were arranged according to the text of thePentateuch.As Genesis contains very little matter of a legal character, there was probably no halakhicmidrash to this book. On the other hand, to each of the other four books of the Pentateuch there was amidrashfrom the school ofRabbi Akivaand one from the school of RabbiIshmael,and thesemidrashimare still in great part extant. Thehalakhic midrashto Exodus from the school of R. Ishmael is theMekilta,while that of the school of R. Akiva is the Mekilta of R.Shimon bar Yochai,most of which is contained inMidrash ha-Gadol.^[19]

Ahalakhic midrashto Leviticus from the school of R. Akiva exists under the name "Sifra"or" Torat Kohanim. "There was one to Leviticus from the school of R. Ishmael also, of which only fragments have been preserved.^[20]Thehalakhic midrashto Numbers from the school of R. Ishmael is the "Sifre";while of that of the school of R. Akiva, theSifre Zutta,only extracts have survived inYalkut ShimoniandMidrash HaGadol.^[21]The middle portion of the Sifre to Deuteronomy forms ahalakhic midrashon that book from the school of R. Akiva, while another from the school of R. Ishmael has been shown by Hoffmann to have existed.^[22]This assignment of the severalmidrashimto the school of R. Ishmael and to that of R. Akiva respectively, however, is not to be too rigidly insisted upon; for the Sifre repeats in an abbreviated form some of the teachings of the Mekilta, just as the Mekilta included in theMidrash HaGadolhas incorporated many doctrines from Akiba'smidrash.^[23]

Midrashic halakhotfound also scattered through the two Talmuds; for many halakhicbaraitot(traditions in oral law) that occur in the Talmuds are reallymidrashic,recognizable by the fact that they mention the scriptural bases for the respective halakhot, often citing the text at the very beginning. In theJerusalem Talmudthemidrashic baraitotfrequently begin withketib(= "It is written" ), followed by the scriptural passage. From the instances ofmidrashic baraitotin the Talmud that are not found in the extantmidrashim,the loss of many of the latter class of works must be inferred.^[24]

The midrash of several youngerTannaimand of manyAmoraim[edit]

Themidrashwhich theAmoraimuse when deducingtannaitic halakhotfrom the scriptures is frequently very distant from the literal meaning of the words. The same is true of many explanations by the youngertannaim.These occur chiefly as expositions of such halakhot as were not based on scripture but which it was desired to connect with or support by a word in the Bible. TheTalmudoften says of the interpretations of a baraita: "The Biblical passage should be merely a support" (asmachta). Of this class are many of the explanations in the Sifra^[25]and in the Sifre.^[26]Thetannaalso often says frankly that he does not cite the biblical word as proof ( "re'aya" ), but as a mere suggestion ( "zecher"; lit. "reminder" ) of the halakah, or as an allusion ( "remez" ) to it.^[27]

References[edit]

^Jacob Neusner,What Is Midrash(Wipf and Stock 2014), p. xi
^Encyclopædia Britannica:Midrash
^Jewish Encyclopedia(1906): "Midrashim, Smaller"
^Encyclopædia Britannica:Midrash
^Jewish Encyclopedia(1906): "Midrashim, Smaller"
^In his "Moreh Nebuke ha-Zeman," p. 163
^Kiddushin 49b
^Mekhilta Bo 3 [ed.I.H. Weiss,p. 5a]
^Rosh Hashana 25a
^Arachin 32b
^Hullin 65a
^l.c. pp. 151 et seq.
^InMekhiltaBo, 16 [ed. Weiss, 24a]
^Pesachim 28b, 96b
^Pesachim 93a
^e.g., Berachot 1:3,5; Bekhorot 1:4,7; Hullin 2:3,8:4;ToseftaZevachim 1:8, 12:20
^e.g.SifraVayikra Hovah 1:9-13 (ed. Weiss, p. 16a, b).
^Hoffmann, "Zur Einleitung in die Halach. Midraschim," p. 3
^Compare I. Lewy, "Ein Wort über die Mechilta des R. Simon," Breslau, 1889
^Compare Hoffmann, l.c. pp. 72-77
^Compare ib. pp. 56-66
^D. Hoffmann, "Liḳḳuṭe Mekilta, Collectaneen aus einer Mechilta zu Deuteronomium," in "Jubelschrift zum 70. Geburtstag des Dr. I. Hildesheimer," Hebrew part, pp. 1-32, Berlin, 1890; idem, "Ueber eine Mechilta zu Deuteronomium," ib. German part, pp. 83-98; idem, "Neue Collectaneen," etc., 1899
^Compare Hoffmann, l.c. p. 93
^Hoffmann, "Zur Einleitung," p. 3
^CompareTosafotBava Batra 66a, s.v. "miklal"
^CompareTosafotBekhorot 54a, s.v. "ushne"
^MekhiltaBo 5 [ed. Weiss, p. 7b];SifreNumbers 112, 116 [ed. Friedmann, pp. 33a, 36a]

This article incorporates text from a publication now in thepublic domain:Singer, Isidore;et al., eds. (1901–1906)."MIDRASH HALAKAH".The Jewish Encyclopedia.New York: Funk & Wagnalls. Bibliography:

Z. Frankel, Hodegetica in Mischnam, pp. 11-18, 307-314, Leipsic, 1859;
A. Geiger, Urschrift, pp. 170-197, Breslau, 1857;
D. Hoffmann, Zur Einleitung in die Halachischen Midraschim, Berlin, 1888;
Nachman Krochmal, Moreh Nebuke ha-Zeman, section 13, pp. 143-183, Lemberg, 1863;
H. M. Pineles, Darkah shel Torah, pp. 168-201, Vienna, 1861;
I. H. Weiss, Dor, i. 68-70 et passim, ii. 42-53.