eliturkel at gmail.com
Wed Jan 9 03:47:33 PST 2013
<<However, that is not true. Midrash were written for over a millenium, and
that means it spans the time from the Tannaim until the Rishonim. Just
because a work has the name Midrash and cites maamarei Chazal does not mean
that it is an Amoraic or immediately post-Amoraic work. (think Mekhilta vs.
Midrash Shemuelby Rabbi Shmuel d'Ouzida of Venice, as an extreme example)>>
I agree 100%. My point is that not all midrashim have the same force. If
the midrash is from chazal we need
to take it very seriously whether literally or not.
However, I claim that a medieval collection of midrashim, particularly one
that is relatively not well known,
need not be taken as seriously. Of course some midrashim like Yalkut
Shimoni (from Shimon HaDarshan approximately a contemporary of Ramban) are
collections of early midrashim and are well accepted
Unfortunately some people treat all midrashim as equal which they are not.
For example a late midrash that states that Jews and goyim have different
number of teeth I would take with a great deal of skeptism
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Avodah