<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd"><html><head><title>[Aspaqlaria]
Midrashei Halakhah</title><link rel="stylesheet"
href="https://www.aishdas.org/asp/wp-content/themes/my_hueman/style.css"
type="text/css" media="screen" /><meta http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body>Aspaqlaria has posted a new
item, '<a href="https://www.aishdas.org/asp/midrashei-halakhah">Midrashei
Halakhah</a>'<br>
<br>
<font size=+1><br>
<p>There are two kinds of <em>medrash</em> (which should technically be called
“<em>m<strong>i</strong>drash</em>” to be grammatically correct).
<em>Midrashei Aggada</em> are non-halakhic statements, those of
<em>mussar</em>, Jewish thought, <em>Qabbalah</em>, and the like. The thought
is usually connected to the text through details added to the narrative, or
other stories intended as metaphor (whether in addition to being historical or
not).</p>
<p>I want to discuss here <em>Midrashei Halakhah</em>, which derive laws from
the text. Most often, through the rules of <em>derashah</em>. Hillel made a
science of <em>derashah</em>, and reduced it to 7 rules. R’
Yishma’el and R’ Aqiva, broke down those rules into subcategories.
Because of the differences in approach, R’ Yishma’el’s
exposition yeilded 13 laws, R’ Aqiva’s, 19.</p>
<p><em>Derashah</em> could be understood in 2 ways: Either as applied to the
semantics, the meaning of the clauses of the verses, or as applied to the
syntax — that particular words have coded meaning.</p>
<p>R’ Yishma’el’s school believed the former. “The
Torah is written in human idiom”. Therefore, derashos apply to the
meaning of clauses, not individual word choice — if it’s normal
idiom or metaphoric description. This also lead R’ Yishmael to view
<em>derashah</em> as a means of getting what the Torah is telling us, such as
“<em>shomei’ah ani</em>” (I hear).</p>
<p>R’ Aqiva learned “mounds of halakhos from the tags and serrifs
on the letters”. He understood <em>derashah</em> to be about the text
itself. Doubled words (e.g. “<em>aseir ta’aseir</em> — you
shall tithe” is also taken to mean “<em>aseir bishvil
sheti’asheir</em> — tithe so that you may become wealthy”),
or the presence of limiting or inclusive keywords (<em>akh</em> –
except; <em>raq</em> – only) are grounds for <em>derashah</em>. R’
Aqiva’s language is more one of finding truths, “yachol”, it
could be that… Being less related to the plain meaning of the verse, he
understands a suggested derashah as less compelling than R’
Yishma’el would.</p>
<p>By their day, these rules of derashah were descriptive only. While Hillel
and Shammai may have had the power to make new derashos (there is debate on
this point), R’s Aqiva and Yishma’el generation certainly
didn’t beyond qal vachomer (deriving from the less obvious case to the
more).</p>
<p>Also, none of this necessarily means they invented the rules of derashah or
even disagreed over fundamentals. The debate between the two schools of
medrash were not over the creation of new laws of derashah. For that matter,
it is clear that Hillel’s laws were known to the previous heads of the
<em>Sanhedrin</em>, the Benei Beseira. The discussion is over taxonomy; how to
understand derashah as being the product of a few clear rules. They could well
have simply divided the existing <em>derashos</em> into existing categories,
and categorized differently. In fact, we find R’ Yishma’el using
<em>ribui umi’ut</em> (a principle of R’ Aqiva’s list) and
R’ Aqiva using <em>kelal uperat</em>.</p>
<p>The two series of medrashei halakhah are:</p>
<table>
<tbody>
<tr>
<th width="10%"> </th>
<th width="45%">R’ Aqiva’s school</th>
<th width="45%">R’ Yishma’el’s school</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<th valign="top">Shemos</th>
<td valign="top">Mekhilta deRabbi Shim’on bar Yochai</td>
<td valign="top">Mekhilta (a/k/a Mekhilta deRabbi Yeshima’el).</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th valign="top">Vayiqra</th>
<td valign="top">Sifra (a/k/a Toras Kohanim and Sifra deVei Rav)</td>
<td valign="top">Sifrei (lost sometime during the late geonim or early
rishonim)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th valign="top">Bamidbar</th>
<td valign="top">Sifrei Zutah (“Small Sifrei”)</td>
<td valign="top">Sifrei (the remaining portion)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th valign="top">Devarim</th>
<td valign="top">Sifrei</td>
<td valign="top">Mekhilta Devarim (largely lost; some portions were recovered
from citations including some only found in the Cairo genizah)</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>The texts seem to have been redacted in the 3rd and 4th centuries.</p>
<p>The traditional publication of the <em>medrashei halakhah</em> includes
four books, mixing the two schools: Mekhilta, Sifra, Sifrei (on Bamidbar) and
Sifrei (on Devarim). In fact, the two Sifrei’s often get published as a
single volume, despite the difference in style that makes their different
origin obvious (once you know to look for it).</p>
<p>A more complete publication would have all seven books, typically published
in the order: Mekhilta, Mehilta deR’ Shim’on bar Yochai, Sifra,
Sifrei (Bamidbar), Sifrei Zuta, Sifrei (Devarim), Mekhilta Devarim.</p>
<p>The word “<em>mekhilta</em>” is Aramaic, and means
“measure” or “rule”. The words
“<em>sifra</em>” and “<em>sifrei</em>” are
conjugations of the root /<em>spr</em>/, meaning “book” or
“writing a book”. Sometimes the word “sifrei” is used
to refer to all 4 books.</p>
<p>After Rabbi Yehudah haNasi compiled the Mishnah, organizing
<em>halakhah</em> by topic rather than verse, the notion of composing
Medrashei Halakhah fell out of use. However, as he was from R’
Aqiva’s school (a student of R’ Aqiva’s student, R’
Meir), that school ended up making greater impact on the final law.</p>
<br>
</font><br>
<br>
You may view the latest post at<br>
<a
href="https://www.aishdas.org/asp/midrashei-halakhah">https://www.aishdas.org/asp/midrashei-halakhah</a><br>
<br>
You received this e-mail because you asked to be notified when new updates are
posted.<br>
Best regards,<br>
micha<br>
micha@aishdas.org</body></html>