1.
Adolf Behrman
–
Abraham Adolf Behrman was a Jewish-Polish-born painter of interwar Poland best known for his outdoor paintings of Jewish shtetl life as well as landscapes and group portraits. He spent most of his life in Łódź and died during the liquidation of the Białystok Ghetto in the Holocaust, Behrmans place of birth is uncertain. He was born either in the town of Tukkum near Mitawa, or in Riga, the son of Róża and Markus Behrman, Adolf studied art under Jakub Kacenbogen at his private Drawing School in Łódź before the 1900s. He continued his studies in Munich in 1900–1904, first privately and his paintings inspired the art critic Zygmunt Bomberg-Batowski to write, Their diverse themes, the depiction - those are always picturesque. This modest artist always thoroughly and lovingly considers any issues brought by a particular theme and he lived there, studied at the Academy and worked for the next five years. From 1924 to 1927, Behrman traveled to Palestine, Egypt and his landscapes originating from that period have become the most known part of his work. Behrmans palette became brighter in that period with the introduction of impressionist tones, in the 1930s, he returned to Poland and went to Kazimierz Dolny for the first time. There, he created one of his most important works, Interior of the Synagogue in Kazimierz Dolny, Behrman was a painter of scenes from daily life of the Polish Jews and views of Jewish quarters. His last major exhibit took place in 1935 in Łódź, after the Nazi German and Soviet invasion of Poland, Behrman escaped to Białystok in the Russian zone of occupation. He was killed in 1943 by the Nazis in the Białystok Ghetto around the time of the perilous Białystok Ghetto Uprising, many of Behrmans paintings were destroyed in World War II. Some of his paintings can be found at the Historical Museum of Kraków, dr. Waldemar Odorowski, In Kazimierz the Vistula River spoke to them in Yiddish. com, Abraham Behrmann, Past Auction Results Behrmans works in Central Jewish Library
2.
Mishnah
–
The Mishnah or Mishna is the first major written redaction of the Jewish oral traditions known as the Oral Torah. It is also the first major work of Rabbinic literature, most of the Mishnah is written in Mishnaic Hebrew, while some parts are Aramaic. The Mishnah consists of six orders, each containing 7–12 tractates,63 in total, the word Mishnah can also indicate a single paragraph or a verse of the work itself, i. e. the smallest unit of structure in the Mishnah. For this reason the work is sometimes called by the plural. The term Mishnah originally referred to a method of teaching by presenting topics in an order, as contrasted with Midrash. The Mishnah consists of six orders, each containing 7–12 tractates,63 in total, each masechet is divided into chapters and then paragraphs. In this last context, the word means a single paragraph of the work, i. e. the smallest unit of structure, leading to the use of the plural, Mishnayot. Because of the division into six orders, the Mishnah is sometimes called Shas, in each order, tractates are arranged from biggest to smallest. A popular mnemonic consists of the acronym ZMaN NaKaT, the Babylonian Talmud states that there were either six hundred or seven hundred orders of the Mishnah. Hillel the Elder organized them into six orders to make it easier to remember, the historical accuracy of this tradition is disputed. There is also a tradition that Ezra the scribe dictated from memory not only the 24 books of the Tanakh but 60 esoteric books. It is not known whether this is a reference to the Mishnah, interestingly, Reuvein Margolies posited that there were originally seven orders of Mishnah, citing a Gaonic tradition on the existence of a seventh order containing the laws of Stam and Berachot. A number of important laws are not elaborated upon in the Mishnah and these include the laws of tzitzit, tefillin, mezuzot, the holiday of Hanukkah, and the laws of conversion to Judaism. These were later discussed in the minor tractates, nissim ben Jacobs Hakdamah Lemafteach Hatalmud argued that it was unnecessary for Judah the Prince to discuss them as many of these laws were so well known. Rabbinic commentaries on the Mishnah from the four centuries, done in the Land of Israel. In themselves they are known as Gemara, the books which set out the Mishnah in its original structure, together with the associated Gemara, are known as Talmuds. Two Talmuds were compiled, the Babylonian Talmud and the Jerusalem Talmud, unlike the Hebrew Mishnah, the Gemara is written primarily in Aramaic. The Mishnah does not claim to be the development of new laws, the term Mishnah is related to the verb shanah, to teach or repeat, and to the adjectives sheni and mishneh, meaning second
3.
Tosefta
–
The Tosefta is a compilation of the Jewish oral law from the late 2nd century, the period of the Mishnah. In many ways, the Tosefta acts as a supplement to the Mishnah, the Mishnah is the basic compilation of the Oral law of Judaism, according to the tradition, it was compiled in 189 CE. The Tosefta closely corresponds to the Mishnah, with the divisions for sedarim. It is mainly written in Mishnaic Hebrew, with some Aramaic, at times the text of the Tosefta agrees nearly verbatim with the Mishnah. At others there are significant differences, the Tosefta often attributes laws that are anonymous in the Mishnah to named Tannaim. It also augments the Mishnah with additional glosses and discussions and it offers additional aggadic and midrashic material, and it sometimes contradicts the Mishnah in the ruling of Jewish law, or in attributing in whose name a law was stated. According to rabbinic tradition, the Tosefta was redacted by Rabbis Ḥiya, whereas the Mishna was considered authoritative, the Tosefta was supplementary. The Talmud often utilizes the traditions found in the Tosefta to examine the text of the Mishnah, the traditional view is that the Tosefta should be dated to a period concurrent with or shortly after the redaction of the Mishnah. This view pre-supposes that the Tosefta was produced in order to record variant material not included in the Mishnah, modern scholarship can be roughly divided into two camps. Some, such as Jacob N. Epstein theorize that the Tosefta as we have it developed from a proto-Tosefta recension which formed much of the basis for later Amoraic debate. Others, such as Hanokh Albeck, theorize that the Tosefta is a compendium of several baraitot collections which were in use during the Amoraic period. Professor Shamma Friedman, has found that the Tosefta draws on relatively early Tannaitic source material, ultimately, the state of the source material is such to allow divergent opinions to exist. These opinions serve to show the difficulties in establishing a clear picture of the origins of the Tosefta, Rabbi Sherira Gaon, in a letter written to the heads of the Jewish community in Kairuan, has disclosed somewhat about the authority of the Tosefta in relation to the Mishnah. There, he writes, We do not follow the opinion of R. Ḥiya, as expressed in a Baraita, if he disputes with Rebbe. For example, let us suppose that a certain halacha had originally been a matter of dispute between R. Meir and R. Yosi, but Rebbe decided to record in the Mishnah only R. Meirs opinion. Whenever R. Meir and R. Yosi disagree, the halacha follows R. Yosi, nevertheless, since in the Mishnah, Rebbe mentioned only R. Meirs opinion, we follow R. Meir. Rabbi Sherira Gaon then brings down the reverse of this example, Or, however, R. Ḥiya prefers R. Meirs argument, and therefore records it in a Baraita without mentioning R. Yosis opposing view. In such a case, we do not accept decision, three manuscripts exist of the Tosefta, they are, Vienna, Erfurt, and, London
4.
Amoraim
–
Amoraim refers to the Jewish scholars of the period from about 200 to 500 CE, who said or told over the teachings of the Oral Torah. They were concentrated in Babylonia and the Land of Israel and their legal discussions and debates were eventually codified in the Gemara. The Amoraim followed the Tannaim in the sequence of ancient Jewish scholars, the Tannaim were direct transmitters of uncodified oral tradition, the Amoraim expounded upon and clarified the oral law after its initial codification. The first Babylonian Amoraim were Abba Arika, respectfully referred to as Rav, among the earliest Amoraim in Israel were Rabbi Yochanan and Shimon ben Lakish. Traditionally, the Amoraic period is reckoned as seven or eight generations, the last Amoraim are generally considered to be Ravina I and Rav Ashi, and Ravina II, nephew of Ravina I, who codified the Babylonian Talmud around 500 CE. In total,761 amoraim are mentioned by name in the Jerusalem,367 of them were active in the land of Israel from around 200-350 CE, while the other 394 lived in Babylonia during 200-500 CE. The following is a listing of the most prominent of the Amoraim mentioned in the Talmud. More complete listings may be provided by some of the links below. Abba Arika, known as Rav, last Tanna, first Amora, moved from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia. Founder and Dean of the Yeshiva at Sura, Shmuel, disciple of Judah haNasis students and others. Dean of the Yeshiva at Nehardea, joshua ben Levi, headed the school of Lod. Bar Kappara Rav Huna, disciple of Rav and Shmuel, Dean of the Yeshiva at Sura. Rav Yehudah, disciple of Rav and Shmuel, Dean of the Yeshiva at Pumbedita. Adda bar Ahavah, disciple of Rav, hillel, son of Gamaliel III, disciple and grandson of Judah haNasi, and younger brother of Judah II. Judah II, disciple and grandson of Judah haNasi, and son, sometimes called Rabbi Judah Nesiah, and occasionally Rebbi like his grandfather. Resh Lakish, disciple of Judah haNasi, Rabbi Yannai and others, Rabbi Yochanan, disciple of Judah haNasi and Rabbi Yannai. Dean of the Yeshiva at Tiberias, primary author of the Jerusalem Talmud. Samuel ben Nahman Shila of Kefar Tamarta Isaac Nappaha Rabbah, disciple of Rav Huna, Dean of the Yeshiva at Pumbedita
5.
Gemara
–
The Gemara is the component of the Talmud comprising rabbinical analysis of and commentary on the Mishnah. After the Mishnah was published by Judah HaNasi, the work was studied exhaustively by generation after generation of rabbis in Babylonia and their discussions were written down in a series of books that became the Gemara, which when combined with the Mishnah constituted the Talmud. There are two versions of the Gemara, the Jerusalem Talmud was compiled by scholars of the Land of Israel, primarily of the academies of Tiberias and Caesarea, and was published between about 350–400 CE. The Talmud Bavli was published about 500 CE by scholars of Babylonia, primarily of the academies of Sura, Pumbedita, by convention, a reference to the Gemara or Talmud, without further qualification, refers to the Babylonian version. The main compilers were Revina and Rav Ashi, the Gemara and the Mishnah together make up the Talmud. The Talmud thus comprises two components, the Mishnah – the core text, and the Gemara – analysis and commentary which completes the Talmud, the rabbis of the Mishnah are known as Tannaim. The rabbis of the Gemara are referred to as Amoraim, the Gemara is mostly written in Aramaic, the Jerusalem Gemara in Western Aramaic and the Babylonian in Eastern Aramaic, but both contain portions in Hebrew. Sometimes the language changes in the middle of a story, in a narrow sense, the word Gemara refers to the mastery and transmission of existing tradition, as opposed to sevara, which means the deriving of new results by logic. Both activities are represented in the Gemara as a literary work, the analysis of the Amoraim is generally focused on clarifying the positions, words and views of the Tannaim. These debates and exchanges form the building-blocks of the gemara, the name for such a passage of gemara is a sugya, a sugya will typically comprise a detailed proof-based elaboration of the Mishna. Every aspect of the Mishnaic text is treated as a subject of close investigation and this analysis is aimed at an exhaustive understanding of the Mishnas full meaning. In the Talmud, a sugya is presented as a series of hypotheses and questions – with the Talmudic text as a record of each step in the process of reasoning. The Gemara thus takes the form of a dialectical exchange, the disputants here are termed the makshan and tartzan. The gemara records the semantic disagreements between Tannaim and Amoraim, some of these debates were actually conducted by the Amoraim, though many of them are hypothetically reconstructed by the Talmuds redactors. The distinctive character of the gemara derives largely from the use of argumentation and debate. In each sugya, either participant may cite scriptural, Mishnaic and Amoraic proof to build a support for their respective opinions. The process of deduction required to derive a conclusion from a prooftext is often logically complex, confronted with a statement on any subject, the Talmudic student will proceed to raise a series of questions before he satisfies himself of having understood its full meaning. The actual debate will usually centre on the categories, Why does the Mishna use one word rather than another
6.
Jerusalem Talmud
–
The Jerusalem Talmud, also known as the Palestinian Talmud or Talmuda de-Eretz Yisrael, is a collection of Rabbinic notes on the second-century Jewish oral tradition known as the Mishnah. Naming this version of the Talmud after Palestine or Land of Israel rather than Jerusalem is considered accurate by some because, while the work was certainly composed in the West. The Jerusalem Talmud predates its counterpart, the Babylonian Talmud, by about 200 years, the word Talmud itself is often defined as instruction. Both versions of the Talmud comprise two parts, the Mishnah, which was finalized by Judah the Prince around the year 200 CE, the Gemara is what differentiates the Jerusalem Talmud from its Babylonian counterpart. The Jerusalem Gemara contains the discussions of generations of rabbis in the Land of Israel. 350-400 CE into a series of books, the Babylonian Gemara, which is the second recension of the Mishnah, was compiled by the scholars of Babylonia, and was completed c. The Babylonian Talmud is often seen as authoritative and is studied much more than the Jerusalem Talmud. In general, the terms Gemara or Talmud, without further qualification, the remaining scholars who lived in the Galilee area decided to continue their teaching activity in the learning centers that had existed since Mishnaic times. The Jerusalem Talmud probably originated in Tiberias in the School of Johanan bar Nappaha and it is a compilation of teachings of the schools of Tiberias, Sepphoris and Caesarea. It is written largely in Jewish Palestinian Aramaic, a Western Aramaic variety that differs from its Babylonian counterpart and this Talmud is a synopsis of the analysis of the Mishnah that was developed over the course of nearly 200 years by the Talmudic Academies in Syria Palaestina. Because of their location, the sages of these Academies devoted considerable attention to analysis of the laws of the Land of Israel. Traditionally, the redaction of this Talmud was thought to have brought to an abrupt end around 425. In recent years scholars have come to doubt the causal link between the abolition of the Nasi and the seeming incompletion of the final redaction. According to the Jewish Encyclopedia, Yerushalmi has not been preserved in its entirety, large portions of it were entirely lost at an early date, while other parts exist only in fragments. Of the four used for this first edition, only one is now in existence. Of the six orders of the Mishnah, the fifth, Ḳodashim, is missing entirely from the Palestinian Talmud, while the sixth, Ṭohorot, the Leiden Jerusalem Talmud is today the only extant complete manuscript of the Jerusalem Talmud. It was copied in 1289 by Rabbi Yechiel ben Yekutiel the Physician of Rome, dūkeh, instead of rūbeh/rabah, saying with a play on words, “The members of Isses household would say in the name of Isse, Why is it called dūkeh. It is because she pounds with him. ”The Hebrew word for pound is dakh, yemenite Jews still call it dūkeh
7.
Talmud
–
The Talmud is a central text of Rabbinic Judaism. It is also referred to as Shas, a Hebrew abbreviation of shisha sedarim, the six orders. Talmud translates literally as instruction in Hebrew, and the term may refer to either the Gemara alone, or the Mishnah, the entire Talmud consists of 63 tractates, and in standard print is over 6,200 pages long. The Talmud is the basis for all codes of Jewish law, Rabbis expounded and debated the Torah and discussed the Tanakh without the benefit of written works, though some may have made private notes, for example of court decisions. It is during this period that rabbinic discourse began to be recorded in writing, the earliest recorded oral Torah may have been of the midrashic form, in which halakhic discussion is structured as exegetical commentary on the Pentateuch. But an alternative form, organized by subject matter instead of by biblical verse, became dominant about the year 200 CE, the Oral Torah was far from monolithic, rather, it varied among various schools. The most famous two were the School of Shammai and the School of Hillel, in general, all valid opinions, even the non-normative ones, were recorded in the Talmud. The oldest full manuscript of the Talmud, known as the Munich Talmud, each tractate is divided into chapters,517 in total, that are both numbered according to the Hebrew alphabet and given names, usually using the first one or two words in the first mishnah. A perek may continue over several pages, each perek will contain several mishnayot with their accompanying exchanges that form the building-blocks of the Gemara, the name for a passage of gemara is a sugya. A sugya, including baraita or tosefta, will comprise a detailed proof-based elaboration of a Mishnaic statement. A sugya may, and often does, range widely off the subject of the mishnah, in a given sugya, scriptural, Tannaic and Amoraic statements are cited to support the various opinions. In so doing, the Gemara will highlight semantic disagreements between Tannaim and Amoraim, and compare the Mishnaic views with passages from the Baraita. Rarely are debates formally closed, in instances, the final word determines the practical law. There is a literature on the procedural principles to be used in settling the practical law when disagreements exist, see under #Logic. The Mishnah is a compilation of legal opinions and debates, statements in the Mishnah are typically terse, recording brief opinions of the rabbis debating a subject, or recording only an unattributed ruling, apparently representing a consensus view. The rabbis recorded in the Mishnah are known as the Tannaim, the Mishnahs topical organization thus became the framework of the Talmud as a whole. But not every tractate in the Mishnah has a corresponding Gemara, also, the order of the tractates in the Talmud differs in some cases from that in the Mishnah. In addition to the Mishnah, other tannaitic teachings were current at about the time or shortly thereafter
8.
Midrash halakha
–
Midrash more generally also refers to the non-legal interpretation of the Tanakh. The phrase Midrash halakha was employed by Nachman Krochmal, the Talmudic expression being Midrash Torah = investigation of the Torah. The early halakha sought only to define the compass and scope of individual laws, asking under what circumstances of life a given rule was to be applied. The form of exegesis adopted is one of simple lexicography. A few examples will serve to illustrate the style of the older Midrash halakha and it translates the word raah displease, which is contrary to the interpretation of Rabbi Eliezer. The statement that the determination of the calendar of feasts depends wholly on the decision of the nasi,37, the defectively written otam being read as attem and the interpretation, which ye shall proclaim, being regarded as conforming to the original meaning of the phrase. 30-where according to the qere the meaning is in the city, but according to the ketib, in the city that is not walled-as referring to a city that once had walls. In a similar way it explains Lev. xi.29, hence its midrash differs from the simple exegesis of the older halakha. A few examples illustrate this difference in the method of interpretation between the older and the younger Halakah. What the older halakha regarded as the meaning of the words of the text. Both halakot regard 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. The younger halakha, despite the dot over the ה, reads reḥoḳah, despite this difference in method, the midrashim of the older and of the younger halakha alike believed that they had sought only the true meaning of the Scriptures. Their interpretations and deductions appeared to them to be contained in the text. Hence they both have the form of Scriptural exegesis, in that each mentions the Biblical passage and the halakha that explains it, or, more correctly and it is to a law stated in this form—i. e. Collections of halakot of the second sort are the Mishnah and the Tosefta and this name they receive to distinguish them from the haggadic midrashim, since they contain halakot for the most part, although there are haggadic portions in them. In these collections the line between independent halakha and Midrash halakha is not sharply drawn, many mishnayot in the Mishnah and in the Tosefta are midrashic halakot. On the other hand, the halakhic midrashim contain independent halakot without statements of their Scriptural bases and this confusion is explained by the fact that the redactors of the two forms of halakot borrowed passages from one another. Since the halakhic Midrashim had for their purpose the exegesis of the Bible
9.
Sifra
–
Sifra is the Halakic midrash to Leviticus. It is frequently quoted in the Talmud, and the study of it followed that of the Mishnah, as appears from Tanḥuma, quoted in Or Zarua, like Leviticus itself, the midrash is occasionally called Torat Kohanim, and in two passages also Sifra debe Rab. H. Weiss, in the introduction to his Sifra edition, attempts to support, the question as to authorship has been correctly answered by Malbim, who proves in the introduction to his Sifra edition that R. Ḥiyya was the redactor of the Sifra. Indeed, as Hoffmann shows, in the three passages in which it can with certainty be said that the reference is to R. Ḥiyya, namely, Wayiḳra, Nedabah, v.5, vi. 10, Ḥiyya himself, in referring to preceding interpretations, indicates that he is the editor and it is perhaps doubtful whether Hoffmann is correct in comparing the above-mentioned passages, or the final remark of R. Joshua in Ḳinnim, with Middot ii.5. As regards the sources of Sifra, it is said in the well-known passage Sanh and that the Sifra belongs to R. Akivas school, as the above-mentioned passage in Sanhedrin indicates, is shown by the principles of exposition contained in the Sifra, e. g. Certain peculiarities of phraseology are likewise noteworthy, יכול replaces שומע אני or אקרא, the phrases usually found in the Mekilta, comp. Further הא כיצד, וכי איזה מדה מרובה, ואם נפשך לומר, וכי מאין יצאת מכלל שנאמר, וכי מאין באת, traces of R. Judahs influence are less evident. The fact that the views expressed in some seṭamot may be proved to agree with R. Judahs views has little significance, e. g. Sifra, Aḥare,5, beginning, compared with Menahot 27b, ib. Such seṭamot may be opposed by others that contradict R. Judahs views, e. g. Sifra,1, compared with R. Judah in Neg. ii. 8, compared with R. Judah, Neg. x, all this, however, is no reason for attacking the above-mentioned assumption that the Sifra in its principal parts is a midrash of R. Judahs. 4 et seq. agrees with R. Eliezers view, aside from R. Judahs midrash, R. Ḥiyya may have used also R. Simeons midrash, although some of the passages mentioned there seem to prove little. More doubtful is the relation to R, but to R. Ishmaels school undoubtedly belong the later additions to Arayot, which, according to Ḥag. i.1 and Yer. 1b, were not publicly taught in R. Akivas school, i. e. Aḥare,14, and finally, of course, the so-called Baraita de-Rabbi Yishmael. The so-called Mekilta de-Milluim or Aggadat Milluim to Lev. viii, 1-10 is similarly to be distinguished from the remainder of the Sifra. It exists in two recensions, of which the second, covering mishnayot 14-16 and 29-end, is cited by Rashi as Baraita ha-Nosefet al Torat Kohanim she-Lanu, the Sifra was divided, according to an old arrangement, into 9 dibburim and 80 parashiyyot or smaller sections. As it exists today it is divided into 14 larger sections and again into smaller peraḳim, parashiyyot, the Sifra frequently agrees with the Judean rather than with the Babylonian tradition, e. g. Sifra, Nedabah, xii. Sheḳ. i.7 likewise agrees with the Sifra. g. in Sifra, Ḳedoshim,1 מאתכם is not a later emendation for מאתן according to Yeb
10.
Sifre
–
Sifre refers to either of two works of Midrash halakhah, or classical Jewish legal Biblical exegesis, based on the biblical books of Bamidbar and Devarim. The title Sifre debe Rab is used by R. Hananeel on Sheb, 37a, Alfasi on Pes. x. and Rashi on Hos. ii. 1, while citing a passage taken from Sifrei on Numbers 25,1, 9b, where, as Berliner says in his edition of Rashi, p.372, בספרא is an error for בספרי, comp. Arukh, s. v. ארבע, where he cites Sifrei on Deuteronomy 6, in regard to the reference in Sanh. Z. D. Hoffmann has correctly defined the relation between the two in his Zur Einleitung in die Halachischen Midraschim, the Sifre to Numbers is evidently a midrash which originated in R. Ishmaels school, and which has all the peculiarities and characteristics of such a work. It follows the principles of exposition as does the Mekilta, the same group of tannaim appears. There are also many points of similarity with the Mekilta. Mishpaṭim,6, Sifre 65 with Mek,15, Sifre 142 with ib.5. The haggadic portions likewise contain many parallel passages, the explanation given in the Sifre to Numbers thus contradicts the explanation in Soṭah 31a and in Sifre, Deut. The Babylonian Talmud, which evidently does not know R. Ishmaels view, but the baraita must in fact be interpreted in the opposite sense, namely, as following the view of R. Ishmael, who, because עד always implies two, as appears from Yer. Soṭah 20d, demands also in the case of a woman charged with two witnesses of the alleged crime. The passage introduced by the phrase סתם ספרי = an anonymous Sifre, likewise echoes R. Ishmaels views, and the same is true of Sifre 21 as compared with Sifre 7. The beginning of Sifre 7 appears to be, strangely enough, Sifre 39 likewise follows R. Ishmaels view, according to Ḥul. Among the tannaim appearing in the Sifre to Numbers are, R. Ishmael and his pupils R. Josiah and R. Jonathan R. Nathan Abba Hanan R. Eliezer R. Akiva and his pupils R. Simeon and R. Judah Less frequently, R. Meïr and R. Jose Rebbi also is mentioned here. Bathyra, who, as D. Hoffmann says, is frequently mentioned in midrashic works from R. Ishmaels school than in any others. A sentence of the amora Samuel b, the Sifre to Deuteronomy is of an entirely different nature. The main portion, halakic in character, is preceded and followed by haggadic parts, the principles underlying the exposition are the same as those in Sifra
11.
Sifri Zutta
–
Sifre Zutta is a midrash on the Book of Numbers. Medieval authors mention it under the titles Sifre shel Panim Aḥerim and Wi-Yeshalleḥu Ẓuta, the Sifre Zuṭa has not been preserved, and, as appears from a remark of Abraham Bakrat, it was no longer extant at the time in which he wrote his commentary on Rashi. However, fragments of the Sifre Zutta have been discovered in the Cairo Geniza, earlier authors knew of it and occasionally quoted it, e. g. R. Samson of Sens in his commentary on the mishnaic orders Zeraim and Ṭohorot. Numerous fragments are found in Yalḳuṭ Shimoni to Book of Numbers, quotations are found also in Num. R. to Naso, as A. Epstein has pointed out, maimonides frequently drew upon the Sifre Zuṭa in his Yad ha-Ḥazaḳah also, and other medieval authors who occasionally quoted it are mentioned by Brüll. The Midrash ha-Gadol to Numbers quotes the part of the Sifre Zuṭa. Around 1900, Königsberger began to edit the Sifre Zuṭa on the basis of the extracts in the Midrash ha-Gadol, a small fragment of the Sifre has been published by S. Schechter in J. Q. R. vi. The Sifre Zuṭa belongs to R. Akivas school, as is indicated by the method of exposition,21, of the partitive מן, ib. xv. 19, and of the ו, ib. v.2,1, and the term לאמר as in Sifra, Emor, vii. Furthermore, some of the views expressed in the Sifre Zuṭa correspond with views known to be R. Akivas, as in v.14, soṭah 3a, and in v.15, with which comp. The midrash may be assigned to R. Simeon rather than to R. Judah, as is done in the case of the Sifra, although some of the anonymous halakot, as v.15. 4, express the views of the latter, R. Simeons authorship is indicated by the fact that he is mentioned least often in the midrash, and that of the later tannaim R. Eleazar b. Simeon is mentioned a few times, further evidence is presented by the correspondence of various halakot with R. Simeons views. Aside from the passages quoted by D. Hoffmann, some of which represent Simeons views more exactly than others—the parallel between v.7 and Mek. Mishpaṭim,15 is doubtful, on account of the different readings in the Mekilta—still others must be taken into account, e. g. Sifre Zuṭa v.21 compared with Tosef. 20, with Nazir 46a, and, what is especially characteristic, noteworthy are the terms אין במשמע אלא and אמרת for תל, which are known to have been used by Eliezer b. The fact that Rebbi is not mentioned leads Hoffmann to the conclusion that the Sifre Zuṭa was not edited by a pupil of Rebbi, some tannaim are mentioned therein whose names are not found elsewhere, e. g. Simeon ben Neḥunyon and Papyas of Ono. By 1900, the Sifre Zuṭa had not yet thoroughly studied
12.
Mekilta le-Sefer Devarim
–
The Mekhilta le-Sefer Devarim is a halakic midrash to Deuteronomy from the school of Rabbi Ishmael which is no longer extant. No midrash by this name is mentioned in Talmudic literature, nor do the authors refer to such a work. But there are circumstances which prove that there was once such a work. Many midrashic baraitot to Deuteronomy are introduced in the Talmud with the words Tena debe R. Yishmael, 124b quotes a passage to a verse in Deuteronomy from the Shear Sifre de-Be Rab, a term by which the Mekilta de-Rabbi Yishmael is designated. This clearly indicates there was a midrash to Deuteronomy by R. Ishmael at the period of the Amoraim. This work, which was called also Mekilta, disappeared at an early date, the editor of the Midrash ha-Gadol, however, knew it and included many passages from it in his collection. It appears from these passages that this midrash contained much valuable material from the earlier halakic exegetes, especially noteworthy is the statement that R. Simon Gamaliel, together with R. Johanan b. Zakkai, addressed a letter to the Galileans and other communities. Hoffmanns collection of extracts from the Mekilta includes also many quotations from Maimonides Yad, hildesheimer, German part, pp. 83-98, Berlin,1890. This article incorporates text from a now in the public domain, Isidore Singer. New York, Funk & Wagnalls Company
13.
Aggadah
–
Aggadah refers to non-legalistic exegetical texts in the classical rabbinic literature of Judaism, particularly as recorded in the Talmud and Midrash. In general, Aggadah is a compendium of texts that incorporates folklore, historical anecdotes, moral exhortations. In terms of etymology, the cognate Hebrew, הַגָּדָה, means telling, while the Aramaic root אגד has the implication of “expanding” / “drawing out”. The root also has the flow, and here relates to the transmission of ideas. The Aggadah is part of Judaisms Oral law —the traditions providing the authoritative interpretation of the Written Law. In this context, the widely held view in rabbinic literature is that the aggadah is in fact a medium for the transmission of teachings or for explanations of verses in the Tanakh. In Rabbinic thought, therefore, much of the Aggadah is understood as containing a hidden, allegorical dimension, in addition to its overt, literal sense. Rabbi Moshe Chaim Luzzatto, the Ramchal, discusses this two-tiered and he explains that the Oral Law, in fact, comprises two components, the legal component, discussing the mitzvot and halakha, and the secret component, discussing the deeper teachings. The aggadah, along with the Kabbalah, falls under the latter, the rabbis of the Mishnaic era believed that it would be dangerous to record the deeper teachings in explicit, mishnah-like, medium. Rather, they would be conveyed in a mode and via paradoxes. As regards this, Maimonides, in his preface to the chapter of Tractate Sanhedrin. The first approach is to accept the Aggadah as literally true, without admission of any hidden, Maimonides is dismissive of this approach. The second approach is to assume that anything said by the Sages was intended literally, Maimonides does not entirely reject rationalist interpretation, but he opposes an exegetical approach which denies the Aggadah a hidden rationality. The third approach is to recognise that many Aggadot are intended to teach profound truths, thus any impossible assertion was, in fact, intended as a parable, further, where aggadot can be understood literally, they may be taken on this level. This is, in general, the view of the Rabbis and it is proper…to carefully analyse …when any of these seem far-fetched we must immerse ourselves in the various branches of knowledge until we understand the concepts. The aggadah is today recorded in the Midrash and the Talmud, throughout the Talmud, aggadic and halakhic material are interwoven—legal material comprises around 90%. The Talmudic aggada, generally, convey the deeper teachings—though in concealed mode, the aggadic material in the Babylonian Talmud is also presented separately in Ein Yaakov, a compilation of the Aggadah together with commentaries. Well-known works interpreting the Aggadot in the Talmud include, Chiddushei Aggados by Samuel Edels the Maharsha, Chiddushei Aggados by Judah Loew the Maharal
14.
Seder Olam Rabbah
–
Seder Olam Rabbah is a 2nd-century CE Hebrew language chronology detailing the dates of biblical events from the Creation to Alexander the Greats conquest of Persia. It adds no stories beyond what is in the text, and addresses such questions as the age of Isaac at the binding. Tradition considers it to have written about 160 CE by Yose ben Halafta, which is not unreasonable. In the Babylonian Talmud this chronicle is several times referred to simply as the Seder Olam, in its present form the Seder Olam Rabbah consists of 30 chapters, each 10 chapters forming a section, or gate. The work is a record, extending from Adam to the revolt of Bar Kokba in the reign of Hadrian. The chronicle is complete only up to the time of Alexander the Great, many passages quoted in the Talmud are missing in the edition of the Seder Olam which has survived. The author probably designed the work for calendrical purposes, to determine the era of the creation, his system, in many cases, however, he gave the dates according to tradition, and inserted, besides, the sayings and halakot of preceding rabbis and of his contemporaries. The application of these principles would obviously have had the effect of compressing the Biblical chronology, the following examples will illustrate the manner in which these principles are applied. The confusion of languages in Genesis is said to have taken place in the days of Peleg, here Biblical chronology presents many difficulties, dates not being clearly given, and in many cases the Seder Olam was used by the later Biblical commentators as a basis of exegesis. Thus, it is known that from the entry of the Israelites into the Holy Land to the time of Jephthah a period of 300 years elapsed. It is further stated that Solomon began to build the Temple in Jerusalem in the year of his reign,480 years after the Exodus. Thus there was a period of 140 years from the year of Jephthah to the building of the Temple. Consequently, there was a period of 83 years from the year of Jephthah to the death of Eli, who ruled 40 years. The chronology of the Kings was more difficult, as there were differences to reconcile between the book of Kings and book of Chronicles. Here especially the author applied the principle of fragments of years, in the 20th chapter, which closes the second part, the author deals with the forty-eight prophets that flourished in the land of Israel. Beginning with Joshua, the reviews the whole prophetic period which terminated with Haggai, Zechariah. Thus, the mentioned in Judges vi.8 was, according to the Seder Olam, Phinehas. The prophecy of Obadiah occurred in the time of Amaziah, King of Judah, and those of Joel, Nahum, and Habakkuk in the reign of Manasseh
15.
Alphabet of Rabbi Akiva
–
Alphabet of Rabbi Akiva is a Midrash on the names of the letters of the Hebrew alphabet. Two versions or portions of the same are known to exist and it is based upon Gen. R. i. and Cant. Then Shin, as the letter of Shem and Shaddai, puts in its claim. Resh as the letter of rosh and of Raḥum next makes its demands. Next comes Ḳoph, as the beginning of Ḳadosh, but it is also the first letter of Ḳelalah, so all the rest complain, each having some claim, which is, however, at once refuted, until Beth, the initial letter of berakah, is chosen. This competition is followed by an explanation of the form of the various letters and by interpretations of the different compositions of the alphabet, AT BSH, AḤS BṬA. Version B is a compilation of allegoric and mystic Aggadahs suggested by the names of the various letters, Beth suggests house, blessing, contemplation, which is prized as superior to the study of the Law. Gimel suggests gemilut ḥasadim, especially Gods benevolence, and the rain of Gods mercy, daled suggests care for the poor. He recalls Gods name, as does Waw Zayin represents the key of sustenance in Gods hand, here follows a chapter on Hell and Paradise continued in Ḥeth = ḥeṭ = sin. Ṭeth suggests ṭiṭ, the clay of earth, and hence, resurrection Yod suggests the reward of the righteous Kaph, the clapping of hands, both versions are given as a unit in the Amsterdam edition of 1708, as they probably originally belonged together. Version A shows more unity of plan, and, as Jellinek has shown, is older and it is directly based upon, if not coeval with, Shab. 104a, according to which the school-children in the time of Joshua ben Levi were taught in such forms which at the same time suggested moral lessons. Jellinek even thinks that the Midrash was composed with the view of acquainting the children with the alphabet, while the Shabuot festival furnished as themes God, Torah, Israel, and Moses. Jellinek has shown the time of its composition to be modern, as is evidenced by the Arabic form of the letters. It was on account that the Alphabet of Rabbi Akiva was made an object of severe attack and ridicule by Solomon ben Jeroham. Version A was likewise known to Judah Hadassi, the Karaite, as to Rabbi Akivas authorship, this is claimed by the writers of both versions, who begin their compositions with the words, R. Akiva hath said. R. i. he and Rabbi Eliezer as youths already knew how to derive meaning from the double form of the letters. This version is published in Jellineks B. H. v. 31-33, bloch, in Winter and Wünsches Jüd
16.
Baraita of the Forty-nine Rules
–
The Baraita of the Forty-nine Rules is a work of rabbinical literature which is no longer in existence except in references by later authorities. Rashi, the Tosafists, Abraham ibn Ezra, Yalḳut, and Asher ben Jehiel mention a work, Baraita of the Forty-nine Rules, ibn Ezra mentions R. Nathan as the author of the Baraita. On this observation, Zunz based the conjecture that this lost work of R, from the few fragments of this Baraita preserved by the above-mentioned authors, only one fact pertaining to its character can be ascertained, viz. If from these short fragments an opinion could be formed concerning the composition of the Baraita, against Zunzs opinion, compare Eliakim Milsahagi RABIH, pp. 4b, 7b. Steinschneider believed that he had put an end to all conjecture concerning the Baraita through a happy find. Were this the case, the Baraita would be a product of the 9th or, at the earliest, of the 8th century, but Steinschneiders assumption can hardly be supported. 30-31,1898, idem, Sefer ha-Liḳḳutim, ii.3 et seq. Zunz, Schapira, 25-30, A. Epstein, in Ha-Ḥoker, i.35. Jewish Encyclopedia article for Baraita of the Forty-nine Rules, by Marcus Jastrow and this article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain, Singer, Isidore, et al. eds. New York, Funk & Wagnalls Company
17.
Baraita on the Thirty-two Rules
–
The Baraita on the Thirty-two Rules or Baraita of R. Eliezer ben Jose ha-Gelili is a baraita giving 32 hermeneutic rules for interpreting the Bible. It no longer exists, except in references by later authorities, abul-Walid ibn Janaḥ is the oldest authority who drew upon this Baraita, but he did not mention it by name. Rashi makes frequent use of it in his commentaries on the Bible and he either briefly calls it the thirty-two rules or designates it as the Baraita of R. Eliezer b. Also the Karaite Judah Hadassi, who incorporated it in his Eshkol ha-Kofer, the beraita has not been preserved in an independent form, and knowledge of it has been gathered only from the recension transmitted in the methodological work Keritot, by Samson of Chinon. The beginning of the Baraita in this recension reads as follows, Jose ha-Gelili, make a funnel of your ear. There are strong grounds for the supposition that the sentence of the Baraita ran, R. Eliezer. This is the reading of Joshua ha-Levi and Isaiah Horowitz, consequently, no adequate reasons exist for doubting the authorship of R. Eliezer. In Vol. XXIII of the Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research, Moshe Zucker sought to prove, from Geniza documents, Hofni Gaon as part of the introduction to his commentary to the Torah. This conclusion has been challenged by A. Greenbaum, The Biblical Commentary of Samuel ben Hofni Gaon, distinction must, however, be made between two different constituent elements of the Baraita. In these 32 sections sayings are cited of the Tannaim R. Akiva, R. Ishmael, R. Jose, R. Nehemiah, R. Nehorai, Rebbi, Ḥiyyah, and of the amoraim Johanan and Jose b. Although these names, especially the last two, show that portions of the Baraita were interpolated long after Eliezer b, Jose, yet no general conclusions may be drawn from it with regard to the whole work. The terminology is prevailingly tannaitic, even in the second portion, W. Bacher correctly remarks that the exclusively tannaitic expression zeker le-dabar is found at the end of section ix. The second part, therefore, leaving later interpolations out of consideration, may also have sprung from the tannaitic period, probably from the school of R. Eliezer. It is noteworthy that the old scholars make citations from the Baraita that are not found in its present form, the 32 rules are those applied in haggadic interpretations. Such treatment is of first importance for the interpretation of the Scriptures, the Baraita, then, written about 150 CE, may be regarded as the earliest work on Biblical hermeneutics, since Philos fantastic allegories can hardly be regarded as such. Following are two examples from the Baraita, which illustrate its method,5 reads, I have gone from tent to tent, and from tabernacle. It should read, and from tabernacle to tabernacle, but the Bible here employs ellipsis, section xxi. says that sometimes a clause that ought to stand at the end of sentences, conveying one idea, is interposed between them. Thus, the place for verse 17 of Psalm xxxiv. would be after 18
18.
Pesikta de-Rav Kahana
–
Pesikta de-Rab Kahana is a collection of Aggadic midrash which exists in two editions, those of Solomon Buber and Bernard Mandelbaum. It is cited in the Aruk and by Rashi, the term pesikta is an Aramaic cognate of the Hebrew pasuk or verse. The position of the Rosh Hashana section as the first pesikta is also attested by the Aruk, according to the arrangement in this edition the homilies fall into three groups, Pentateuchal, Prophetic, and Tishri, piskot. An unnumbered other piskah to Isa,61,10, after two manuscripts, is printed after No. Piskot Nos.12 and 32 each consist really of two homilies, but the second homily in No.27 does not belong to the Pesikta. These twelve homilies are designated by an old abbreviation as דשח נוע ארק שדש, another manuscript, entitled Haftarah Midrash, contains only these homilies, with the exception of next to the last one. Entire homilies of the Pesikta have been taken over, or sometimes worked over, into the Pesikta Rabbati, Leviticus Rabbah also contains some of the homilies found in Pesikta. The parashiyyot 20, 27-30 in Leviticus Rabbah are, with the exception of a few differences, zunz takes the Pesikta to be dependent on Leviticus Rabbah, assigning this midrash to the middle of the 7th century, but the Pesikta to the year 700. But other authorities regard the Pesikta as the earliest midrash collection, undoubtedly the core content of the Pesikta is very old, and must be classed together with Genesis Rabbah and Lamentations Rabbah. According to Strack & Stemberger, the text of the current Pesikta was probably not finally fixed until its first printing, zunz gives a date of composition of 700 CE, but other factors argue for a date of composition in 5th or early 6th century. Came into use, this cycle is not mentioned in Talmudic times and this article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain, Singer, Isidore, et al. eds. article name needed. New York, Funk & Wagnalls Company, introduction to the Talmud and Midrash, Edinburgh, T&T Clark, ISBN 978-0-8006-2524-5. Braude, W G, Pesikta Derab Kahana, Jewish Publication Society of America,2 edition, Jewish Encyclopedia article for Haggadic Midrashim, by Isidore Singer and J. Theodor. Pesikta de-Rav Kahana, Solomon Buber edition, scanned, PDF, at the daat. ac. il web site Pesikta de-Rav Kahana, Mandelbaum edition, scanned, PDF
19.
Esther Rabbah
–
Esther Rabbah is the midrash to the Book of Esther in the current Midrash editions. 5, and in the Venice edition of 1545 each has at the end the words selika parashata and this division was probably based on the sections of the Esther roll, as indicated by the closed paragraphs, such paragraphs existing in the present text to i. 4, as well as the lack of a beginning to i,16, may be due to differences in the division of the text. It may furthermore be assumed that a new parashah began with the section Esther iii,1, where several poems precede the comment of the midrash. From this point onward there is hardly a trace of further division into chapters, there is no new parashah even to Esther vi. 1, the climax of the Biblical drama, the various paragraphs that follow chapter viii. Seem to have been merely tacked on, the Book of Esther early became the subject of comment in the schoolhouses, as may be seen from Megillah 10b et seq. where long haggadic passages are joined to single verses. The midrash under consideration is variously connected with these passages, the author of Esther Rabbah often draws directly upon the Yerushalmi, Bereshit Rabbah, Wayikra Rabbah, Pirke De-Rabbi Eliezer, Targumim, and other ancient sources. Bereshit Rabbah or Wayikra Rabbah may also have furnished the long passage in parashah i. in connection with the explanation of the first word. According to Strack & Stemberger, the midrash may be considered to be composed of two different parts which were combined in the 12th or 13th century. An older part characterized by non-anonymous proems, originating in Palestine around 500 CE, which material from Talmud Yerushalmi, Genesis Rabbah. This part is then cited in such works as Ecclesiastes Rabbah. A younger part drawing from Yosippon, which may be dated to the 11th century, in any case, this midrash may be considered older and more original than the Midrash Abba Gorion to the Book of Esther. The Yalkut Shimoni quotes many passages from the midrash, as well as from another haggadic commentary. The midrash here considered is entitled Midrash Megillat Esther in the Venice edition, nahmanides quotes it as the Haggadah to the Esther roll. It may be assumed with certainty that it is of Judean origin and this article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain, Singer, Isidore, et al. eds. article name needed. New York, Funk & Wagnalls Company, the JE cites the following works, Zunz, G. V. pp.264 et seq. Weiss, Dor, iii. 209, A. Jellinek, B. H. i, winter and Wünsche, Die Jüdische Litteratur, i.554 et seq. a German transl. of the Midrash in Wünsche, Bibl
20.
Midrash Iyyob
–
Midrash Iyyob or Midrash to Job is an aggadic midrash that is no longer extant. Extracts with express reference to the source Midrash Iyyob are found to Job i, the extracts found in the Yalḳuṭ Makiri to Ps. li.7 and Ps. cxlvi. 4 with the source-reference Midrash and referring to Job iii.2,1, are, perhaps, likewise taken from the Midrash Iyyob, as are many passages in the Job commentaries of Samuel b. The extracts and quotations from Midrash Iyyob have been collected by Wertheimer, strack & Stemberger cite an opinion attributing Midrash Iyyov to the amora Hoshaiah Rabbah, although this dating is uncertain. According to Zunz, there are evidences of the existence of midrashim to Ezra, for the Midrash al Yithallel, to Jer. ix.22 and to the Hallel Midrash, see Smaller Midrashim. This article incorporates text from a now in the public domain, Singer, Isidore. New York, Funk & Wagnalls Company, introduction to the Talmud and Midrash, Edinburgh, T&T Clark, ISBN 978-0-8006-2524-5
21.
Seder Olam Zutta
–
Seder Olam Zutta is an anonymous chronicle from 804 CE, called Zuṭta to distinguish it from the older Seder Olam Rabbah. This work is based upon, and to a certain extent completes and continues and it is apparent that the object of this work was to show that the Babylonian exilarchs were direct descendants of David. The Seder Olam Zuṭa is more complete at this point than the larger work and it gives also the lifetime of each of Jacobs twelve sons as recorded by tradition. Otherwise it merely enumerates the generations, from David onward it gives the names of the high priests and prophets who lived in the time of each king. But in I Chronicles only five priests are enumerated, whose names are not found at all among those given by the Seder Olam Zuṭa. The author of the work divided these 50 generations into five series, each of 10 generations, the last of series being, respectively, Noah, Abraham, Boaz, Ahaziah. The second part of the work begins with the statement that Jehoiachin and he was afterward given high rank by Evil-merodach, thus becoming the first prince of the Captivity. Correcting the somewhat confused genealogical account of 1 Chronicles 3, 17-19, the Seder Olam Zuṭa declares that Jehoiachin had four sons, the eldest of whom was Shealtiel, who succeeded his father. Then the chronicle enumerates the successive exilarchs, the account being in part taken from 1 Chronicles 3,16 et seq. but differing greatly from the text of the latter. In fact, the first, 13th, 16th, 18th, and 19th exilarchs (the last one being Shaphat, not as immediate successors, but as related individuals, and in contemporaneous groups. Sometimes, too, the father in I Chronicles is the son in the Seder Olam Zuṭa. With the deaths of Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi—more exactly, in the 52nd year of the Persian domination, or year 3442 of the creation—prophecy ceased, from Hananiah onward every exilarch is indicated as having been guided by wise men. The names of the kings that reigned over Judea from Alexander the Great to Roman Palaestina during the destruction of the Second Temple are given, like the Seder Olam Rabbah, this chronicle gives the reigns of the Maccabees and the Herods as covering 103 years each. Further, from Nahum, the 17th exilarch, the names are given of the men, probably the chiefs of the academy. With Rab Huna, 29th exilarch, the male line of descent from David terminated. The exilarchs following are stated to have descendants of Rab Huna through his daughter, the wife of R. Hananiah. After having stated that Mar-Zutra II, the 13th exilarch, was executed in the year 502 C. E, apart from certain misstatements, this part contains many authenticated facts, and is therefore considered by modern scholars as a document of historical value. It may be seen that the lives of 31 exilarchs covered a period of more than 900 years, averaging three exilarchs to a century
22.
Tanhuma
–
Midrash Tanhuma is the name given to three different collections of Pentateuch aggadot, two are extant, while the third is known only through citations. These midrashim, although bearing the name of R. Tanḥuma and they were so named merely because they consist partly of homilies originating with him and partly of homilies by aggadic teachers who followed the style of R. Tanḥuma. It is possible that R. Tanḥuma himself preserved his homilies, the three collections were edited at different times, they will, therefore, be treated in chronological order. Tanḥuma A, also called Tanchuma Buber, is the published by S. Buber. Buber postulated that this midrash was edited in the 5th century, Buber cites a passage in the Babylonian Talmud that seems to indicate that the redactor of that work had referred to the Midrash Tanḥuma. Other scholars disagree, however, and do not see the Buber recension of Tanchuma as being older than the other versions, townsend cites a section from Bubers recension which appears to be a quote from Rav Sheriras Sheiltot. This passage says that two amoraim differed in their interpretations of the words and looked after Moses, until he was gone into the tabernacle. One amora interpreted the words in a sense, while the other held that the people looked after Moses. The favorable interpretation only is given in the Talmud, while the adverse opinion is referred to with the words ki de-ita, the homilies contained in Midrash Tanḥuma A begin with the words As the Scriptures say or sometimes As it is written. Then follow a verse, its explanation, and a homily on the passage of the Pentateuch referred to. Several of the homilies on the first, third, and fourth books of the Pentateuch begin with brief halakic dissertations bearing on the passages to which the homilies refer, although essentially an aggadic midrash, Tanḥuma A contains many halakic sayings. In addition to its 61 introductions to homilies, which contain halakic questions and answers, there are several halakic rules and decisions quoted throughout the work. These halakic passages were taken from the Mishnah or the Baraita, some of the aphorisms and proverbs may be cited here, One may not give an honest man an opportunity to steal, much less a thief. The office seeks those that would escape it, if you yield not to wickedness it will not follow you nor dwell by you. Do the wicked no good in order that thou reap not that which is evil, the Geonim also and the older rabbinical authorities made use of it, and cited halakic as well as aggadic sentences from it. The first to refer to this midrash by the name of Tanḥuma, however, was Rashi, who mentions it in several passages of his commentary, most of Rashis quotations are taken from Tanḥuma A. It is referred to also under the name of Tanḥuma, though by only a few authorities, as Hai Gaon and Zedekiah ben Abraham. The Yelammedenu, which several passages from Tanḥuma A, is often cited in the Aruk
23.
Megillat Antiochus
–
Megillat Antiochus recounts the story of Hanukkah and the history of the victory of the Maccabees over the Seleucid Empire. Early texts of the work exist in both Aramaic and Hebrew, but the Hebrew version is a translation from the Aramaic original. In 1557 it was first published in Mantua, in northern Italy, the Hebrew text, with an English translation, can be found in the Siddur of Philip Birnbaum. The first known printed text is found in a Siddur from Salonika, then part of the Ottoman Empire, the original Aramaic text can also be found in old Yemenite Baladi-rite Prayer Book from the 17th century. There are several theories as to the works authorship, some scholars date Megillat Antiochus to somewhere between the 2nd and 5th centuries, with the greater likelihood of it being composed in the 2nd Century. The scroll is first mentioned by Simeon Kayyara in Halakhot Gedolot, wherein he claims that the scroll was compiled by the elders of the School of Shammai and the elders School of Hillel. Another opinion is that of Saadia Gaon who holds that the Scroll of Antiochus was composed in the Chaldaic language by the Hasmonaeans themselves and he translated it into Arabic in the 9th Century. Hakham Moses Gaster argued for a 1st-century BCE date, the Mahzor of the Kaffa Rite from the year 1735 gives the order to read the Megillat Antiochus in the Mincha of Shabbat Hanukkah. It still forms part of the liturgy of the Yemenite Jews, the Books of the Maccabees are entirely different from this work. The rest of the books bear this name because other heroic deeds are recounted there, moreover, 1-4 Maccabees survives only in Greek. 1 Maccabees was probably composed in Hebrew, the other three books of the Maccabees were originally written in Greek. There was in it to light for one day, but the God of heaven whose name dwells there put therein his blessing and they were able to light from it eight days. In them, it is not permitted to mourn, neither to decree a fast, and anyone who has a vow to perform, let him perform it. ”
24.
Pirke De-Rabbi Eliezer
–
Pirke de-Rabbi Eliezer is an aggadic-midrashic work on the Torah containing exegesis and retellings of biblical stories. The composition enjoyed widespread circulation and recognition throughout Jewish history, leopold Zunz has suggested that the book has had interpolations made to copies owned by private citizens in the 8th century. Isaak Jost first noticed the inclusion of 8th century interpolations, the topic of chapters one and two of the composition is the beginnings of Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrkanus, it is due to them that medieval sages attributed the entire work to him. However, Zunz conclusively proved that this traditional ascription is not historically accurate and this is further proved by one manuscript which places the title “Pirkei R. Eliezer ben Hyrkanus” and begins the chapter numbering only after chapter two. Nevertheless, it is critical to note that both chapters are found in all manuscripts of the composition, which increases the likelihood that they have always been part of the composition. Furthermore, examination of the language of these chapters also points to the fact that these chapters are considered part of the composition. PRE contains distinct literary phrases which appear and reappear throughout the entire work, there is a complex problem about the completeness of the composition. Zunz detected two literary structures around which the author of PRE has organized his composition, but which are not complete in the composition as it is known to us today. A) At the beginning of chapter fourteen there is a list of ten times that God descended into the world and these “descents” are expounded upon in various places throughout the work. However, the last descent to appear is the eighth, the two are missing. B) From chapter twenty-six and onwards, several chapters conclude with a blessing from the Shemoneh Esreh prayer, alongside this possibility, Zunz raised the possibility that the work was at one point complete, but that parts of it were lost in its early period. This suggestion has found acceptance among scholars, who are in almost complete agreement that the composition as it is in our hands is missing pieces that were once in existence. However, subsequent analysis by Treitl has usually demonstrated that the ascription of these pieces of works to a more original PRE is without basis. No textual witness includes the blessing for forgiveness or redemption, chapter ten concludes with a reference to the blessing for converts, making it clearly out of place within the larger composition, which only begins referring to the blessings in chapter twenty-six. It seems therefore likely that the author of the work never succeeded in weaving all of the various blessings into the work in their correct order, the passage that concludes the composition in all of the complete manuscripts may be interpreted as referring to this situation. In this passage the author praises Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the text itself attributes the authorship of the text to Tannaim Rabbis. This would place the text, minus any interpolations or additions. If a statement in ch. xxviii, the work is ascribed to R. Eliezer, although he was a tanna, while the book itself the Pirḳe Abot is quoted
25.
Tanna Devei Eliyahu
–
Tanna Devei Eliyahu is the composite name of a midrash, consisting of two parts, whose final redaction took place at the end of the 10th century CE. The first part is called Seder Eliyahu Rabbah, the second, a distinct reference to this midrash occurs in the Talmud in Ket. 106a, Hence, according to Rashi, the midrash has the two names, Rabbah for the earlier, and Zuṭa for the later lectures, anan was a Babylonian amora of the 3rd century. The tosafot to Ketubot say that the midrash consists of a large book, the inner connection between these two midrashim is a loose one, and it is only in sections 5 to 10 that the second refers to the first. The underlying theme of the Tanna debe Eliyahu, which, with interruptions, runs through the whole work, is the evolution of the world-system. The midrash calls the single periods of the history of man shiṭṭot, the first series, which deals with the beginning of the world and extends to the moment when man was driven out of Eden, consists of two subsections, Maaseh Merkabah and Maaseh Bereshit. The six series of the world-system, however, were created in the mind even before any being, with the exception of Israel. Even before these six foundations, however, Israel was, as stated above, already in being in the divine mind, the second series embraces the period from the expulsion of man from Eden to the Flood. In the ten generations from Adam to Noah man did not adhere to meekness, did not do what was right, but fell lower and lower until he practiced violence, theft, immorality, for this reason his destruction became a necessity. The third series extends from the Flood to King Manasseh of Judah and it treats of the time of the study of the Law, of the priestly office, of the kingdom, and of the end of Israels prosperity through the evil administration of Manasseh. In the days of Abraham the period of tohu wa-bohu ceases, whoever studies the Torah receives meekness as a reward. In addition there is a second recompense, which is the Mishnah, in this introduction of the Mishnah there is a trace of apology intended for those who believe that only the Torah was delivered on Mount Sinai. The fifth series extends from King Manasseh to the building of the Second Temple, the last series treats of the future. God, surrounded by all the saints, sits in His bet ha-midrash and counts up the generations of the different periods of time, what they have learned, the future of these saints will be like the beginning of the life of man. These six series are divided into three main periods, the present world, the Messianic period, and the future world. These are subdivided into,2,000 years of confusion,2,000 years of the Torah,2,000 years of the Messiah, inauguration of a general peace, the future world. The midrash, further, attempts to prove that all life is based on the two extremes, toil in the sweat of the brow, and the regaining of the freedom of the soul. Hence it begins with the expulsion of Adam from Eden, the cherubim in Eden are identified with man, and are the symbol of the reward of well-doing, the flaming sword is hell, the punishment for evil-doing
26.
Alphabet of Sirach
–
The Alphabet of ben Sirach is an anonymous medieval text inspired by the Wisdom of Sirach. It is dated to anywhere between 700 and 1000 CE and it is a compilation of two lists of proverbs,22 in Aramaic and 22 in Hebrew, both arranged as alphabetic acrostics. Each proverb is followed by an Haggadic commentary, the work has been characterized as satirical, and it contains references to masturbation, incest and flatulence. The text has been translated into Latin, Yiddish, Judeo-Spanish, French, a partial English translation appeared in Stern and Mirsky. The Aramaic proverbs are the far part of the book. Five of them can be traced to Talmudic-Midrashic literature, the Hebrew commentary, illustrating the proverbs with fables, is much younger. In the reading of Ginzberg, Honor the Ethiop before thou hast need of him, If a son do not conduct himself like a son, gnaw the bone that falls to thy lot whether it be good or bad. Gold must be hammered, and the child must be beaten, be good and refuse not thy portion of good. Woe to the man and woe to his companions. Cast thy bread upon the waters and upon the land, for thou shalt find it after many days Hast thou seen a black ass. it was neither black nor white, bestow no good upon that which is evil, and no evil will befall thee. Restrain not thy hand from doing good, the bride enters the bridal chamber and, nevertheless, knows not what will befall her. A nod to the wise is sufficient, the fool requires a blow and he who honors them that despise him is like an ass. Rise quickly from the table and thou wilt avoid disputes, in thy business deal only with the upright. If the goods are near at hand, the owner consumes them, do not disavow an old friend. Thou mayest have sixty counselors, but do not give up thy own opinion He that was first satisfied and then hungry will offer thee his hand, the 22 Hebrew proverbs are quite different in character from the Aramaic ones, and much more recent. Half of the proverbs are borrowed from the Talmud, and are only a pretext for the presentation of a number of legends surrounding Ben Sira, Ben Sira is presented as the son of Jeremiah. Ben Siras fame reached Nebuchadnezzar, who called him to his court, Nebuchadnezzar sets forth various ordeals for Ben Sira, who responds with 22 stories. Some of the fables of the collection are indebted to Christian legend, the text is best known because of its reference to Lilith, and it is the fifth of Ben Siras responses to King Nebuchadnezzar
27.
Ecclesiastes Rabbah
–
Ecclesiastes Rabbah or Kohelet Rabbah is an haggadic commentary on Ecclesiastes, included in the collection of the Midrash Rabbot. It follows the Biblical book verse by verse, only a few verses remaining without comment, in the list of the old sedarim for the Bible four sedarim are assigned to Ecclesiastes, namely, to i. 7, and the Midrash Ḳohelet was probably divided according to these sections and this appears from the phrase Sidra tinyana inserted between the comments to Eccl. vi.12 and to vii. 1, and the phrase Sidra telitaa between the comments to Eccl. ix.6 and to ix.7. These phrases occur at the end of the second and third sections, in the same way that Seliḳ sidra indicates the end of sections in Ruth R. The commentary to iii.12 having been lost, the exposition of the conclusion of the first section is missing, nothing remains to indicate where one section ends and another begins, as there is no introductory remark to the comment on ii.13. But an introduction is also lacking to the comment on vii.1, the author confined himself chiefly to collecting and editing, and did not compose new introductions to the sections. This shows the important part which the introductions to the earlier midrashim played in the later midrashim and this, even in very early times, gave rise to a haggadic treatment of numerous passages in Ecclesiastes, which in turn furnished rich material for the compilation of the Midrash Ḳohelet. The longest passages in the Midrash Ḳohelet are the introductions to Pesiḳta and Wayiḳra Rabbah, some introductions were abbreviated, and introductions from different midrashim were combined in a comment on one passage of Ecclesiastes. For instance, the passage on Eccl. xii. 1–7 is a combination of the introduction to Wayiḳra Rabbah xviii,1 and the twenty-third introduction in Ekah Rabbati. 1,11,15,16, v.4,5,8,15, many other passages besides the introductions have been transferred from those sources to the Midrash Ḳohelet. Moreover, it contains passages in common with Ruth R. compare especially the comment on Eccl. vii.8. Abuya, with Ruth Rabbah vi. with which it agrees almost verbatim, in this case the story was not taken direct from its source in Yer. The author of the Midrash Ḳohelet of course frequently consulted the aggadah of the Jerusalem Talmud, 5a, must be considered as an addition. In the same comment on v.8, at the beginning of a proem in Wayiḳra Rabbah xxii, a modification of the passage in the latter is made which gives ample proof that the Midrash Ḳohelet was written at a later time than the other midrashic works mentioned. As Zunz assumes, the Midrash Ḳohelet belongs to the time of the middle midrashim, such repetitions are frequently found in the earlier midrashim. In Midrash Ḳohelet the same comments are found on Eccl. i.2 as on vi,13, and on vii.11 as on ix
28.
Shir ha-Shirim Rabbah
–
Shir ha-Shirim Rabbah is a Haggadic midrash on Song of Songs, quoted by Rashi under the title Midrash Shir ha-Shirim. It is called also Agadat Ḥazita, from its initial word Ḥazita, simon Duran, in quoting this midrash, says that it is a Judean haggadic collection. The sources which it uses directly are from the Jerusalem Talmud, the date of composition of this midrash cannot be exactly determined. The majority of the interpretations in the work were taken from public lectures on Canticles. This midrash is, according to Jellinek, older than the Pesiḳta de-Rab Kahana, Theodor has shown, however, that it was composed at a later date than the Pesiḳta de-Rab Kahana, from which it has borrowed entire passages. Besides the Jerusalem Talmud and the Pesiḳta de-Rab Kahana, the sources used by the redactor are Genesis Rabbah. The material borrowed from these sources constitutes a part of the midrash. The midrash is older than Pesiḳta Rabbati, since the latter borrowed passages directly from it, as the Pesiḳta Rabbati was composed about 845 C. E. Shir ha-Shirim Rabbah must have been composed about the end of the 8th century. The midrash has been edited and commented together with the other Midrash Rabbot and this article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain, Singer, Isidore, et al. eds. article name needed. New York, Funk & Wagnalls Company, zunz, G. V. pp. 274–276, Frankfort-on-the-Main,1892, J. Theodor, Zur Composition der Agadischen Homilien, in Monatsschrift,1879. Pp. 337–350, 408-418, 455-462,1880, pp. 19–23, Weiss, Dor, jewish Encyclopedia article for Shir ha-Shirim Rabbah, by Wilhelm Bacher and Jacob Zallel Lauterbach
29.
Midrash Shmuel (aggadah)
–
Midrash Samuel, an aggadic midrash on the books of Samuel, is quoted for the first time by Rashi in his commentary on I Sam. In his Ha-Pardes Rashi again quotes from this midrash, saying that it is entitled Et la-Asot la-Adonai, the midrash contains haggadic interpretations and homilies on the books of Samuel, each homily being prefaced and introduced by a verse taken from some other book of the Bible. It resembles most of the other haggadic midrashim both in diction and in style, in fact, it is a collection of found in such midrashim. The editor arranged the sentences in the sequence of the Scripture passages to which they refer, in two places only have passages been added by later copyists, ch. iv.1 and ch. xxxii. The midrash is divided into 32 chapters, contain interpretations and homilies on the First, and ch. xxv. -xxxii. On the Second, Book of Samuel, only once does he quote a sentence from Babli, which he introduces with the words Taman amrin. This, as well as the fact all the amoraim mentioned in this midrash resided in the Land of Israel. His name and the time at which he lived can not be definitely determined, Zunz assigns him to the first half of the 11th century, although the reasons which he gives for this assumption have been refuted by S. Buber. Strack & Stemberger indicate that the work was composed earlier than the 11th century, since it is cited by Samuel ben Hofni, Nissim Gaon. A manuscript of this midrash is in the Parma Library, the first printed edition of the work appeared at Constantinople in 1517 or 1522, the Hebrew date is not fully legible, but it undoubtedly refers to one of these years. It was printed again at Venice in 1546, and subsequently at various places and times, the latest and best edition prior to 1900 was that by Solomon Buber, with introduction and notes. This article incorporates text from a now in the public domain, Singer, Isidore. New York, Funk & Wagnalls Company, the JE cites the following works, Zunz, G. V. pp. 269–270, Weiss, Dor, iii. 276, S. Buber, preface to his edition of the midrash, introduction to the Talmud and Midrash, Edinburgh, T&T Clark, ISBN 978-0-8006-2524-5 Jewish Encyclopedia article on Midrash Samuel, by Wilhelm Bacher and Jacob Zallel Lauterbach. This article incorporates text from a now in the public domain, Singer, Isidore. New York, Funk & Wagnalls Company
30.
Baraita of Samuel
–
A Baraita of Samuel was known to Jewish scholars from Shabbethai Donolo in the 10th century to Simon Duran in the 15th century, and citations from it were made by them. It was considered as lost until around 1900, when it appeared in print. In its present form, the Baraita is composed of nine chapters, treating astronomy, the first chapter deals with the form of heaven, of Orion, of the Pleiades, of Draco, and of the planets and their light. The second and third treat of the movements of the moon, at the same time directions are given for adjusting the gnomon of a sun-dial. The fourth defines the character of the seasons and the planets, the fifth, directions are given for calculating Molad and Teḳufah. The sixth imparts the teachings of the Egyptian sages on the position of the planets. The seventh chapter mentions the exact distances of the planets from the Earth, the moon is considered the nearest, Saturn, the eighth chapter deals with the altitudes of the planets. The ninth chapter discusses the influence of the bodies on earthly affairs. It is conceded that the planets in themselves can not make for good or evil, the older scholars considered the author of the Baraita to be the amora Samuel bar Abba, who, according to the statements in the Talmud, was a great astronomer. The newer editions have Samuel ha-Ḳaṭan as the author and this is hardly based on a tradition, but rather is due to a combination of the name Samuel with Samuel ha-Ḳaṭan, who is mentioned as possessing knowledge of the Ibbur. These suggestions of names have no material value, the very contents and language of the Baraita contradict the assumption that it is the work of amoraim or tannaim. Moreover, ch. v. designates the year 4536 as the one which, with but a slight difference, the courses of the sun and moon, leap-years, and Teḳufah will repeat themselves, and calculations must begin anew from this year. The earliest date, then, at which the Baraita could have written is 776. It is more difficult to determine the latest date and this question is connected with that of the relationship of the Baraita to the Pirḳe de-Rabbi Eliezer. Some have endeavored to conclude, from citations of the Baraita by Abraham ben Ḥiyyah and Judah ha-Levi, that the Baraita and the Pirḳe de-Rabbi Eliezer originally formed one work. The portions of the Baraita now existing prove clearly that the two are different, neither diction, subject, character, nor aim of the two works bearing any resemblance. There is, however, distinct kinship between the two chapters of the Pirḳe de-Rabbi Eliezer and the Baraita of Samuel, but it cannot be decided which author borrowed from the other. In fact, there may have been a source from which both drew
31.
Targum Sheni
–
The Jewish Encyclopedia characterises the story as a genuine and exuberant midrash, i. e. a free elaboration, of a kind not unusual in Rabbinic literature. There are a number of parallels between the Targum Sheni account and the Quranic account of Solomon and the Queen in Sura 27. The ascribed date of 800 by the Encyclopaedia Judaica is post-Islamic so it may have influenced by the Quran. Nineteenth Century scholars had earlier placed the composition anywhere from the fourth to the eleventh century CE, there is controversy among scholars about the date of the Targum Sheni. S. Gelbhaus placed its authorship in the period, in the fourth century, P. Cassel dates it in the sixth century. L. Munk puts its date still later, in the 11th century, the Encyclopaedia Judaica argued for a dating of the late 7th or early 8th century. Much of the controversy centers on whether its similarities to the Quranic account supports an earlier or later dating, that is, linguistic features of the Aramaic text, including its many Greek loan words, are one of the stronger arguments in support of an earlier dating. Apocryphal Additions to Esther - Jewish Encyclopedia An explanatory commentary on Esther tr. of Cassel, Paulus, translation of Targum Sheni in appendix I
32.
Midrash Tehillim
–
49, and on many other passages. This midrash is called also Agadat Tehillim, or Haggadat Tehillim, from the 12th century it was called also Shocher Tov, because it begins with the verse Prov. xi. 27, שחר טוב יבקש רצון ודרש רעה תבואנו, etc, the true midrash covers only Ps. i. -cxviii. and this is all that is found either in the manuscripts or in the first edition. In the second edition a supplement was added covering, with the exception of two psalms, Ps. cxix. -cl, the author of this supplement was probably R. Mattithiah Yiẓhari of Zaragoza, who collected the scattered haggadot on Ps. cxix. -cl. From the Yalḳuṭ, adding comments of his own, since Ps. cxxiii. and cxxxi. are in the Yalḳuṭ, the author of the supplement included no haggadic interpretations on these two psalms. This omission has been supplied by S, the name of the editor and the date of the redaction of the true midrash cannot now be determined. The assumption that Rav Johanan or Rav Simon, the son of R. Judah ha-Nasi and it may, on the contrary, be shown that the midrash is not the work of a single editor. There are many passages containing the same thought, substantially the same haggadot appear in different forms in different passages, e. g. Ps. vii. It has been said that the date of the redaction of the midrash cannot be determined, haggadic collections on the Psalms were made at a very early time, and are mentioned several times in the Talmudim and in Genesis Rabbah, e. g. Yer. But it cannot possibly be assumed that the collections on the Psalms are identical with the present Midrash Tehillim. It can not be denied, however, that material from those old collections is included in the present midrash. It must therefore be assumed that parts of the old collections had been preserved among the later haggadists, in the course of time this collection was supplemented and enlarged by the additions of various collections and editors, until the Midrash Tehillim finally took its present form. Its definitive completion must, according to Zunz, be assigned to the last centuries of the period of the Geonim, but Zunzs assumption, that the midrash was compiled in Italy, cannot be accepted. The work was edited in Palestine, as appears from the language, style, nearly all the amoraim mentioned in it are Palestinian rabbis, and the few Babylonian amoraim referred to, e. g. R. Ḥida, are mentioned also in Yerushalmi. Buber, l. c. p.32, note 131), the midrash contains homilies on the Psalms and comments on single verses and even on single words. The homilies are as a rule introduced with the formula as Scripture says, in only a few cases are they introduced as in the other midrashim, with the formula Rabbi N. N. has begun the discourse, or Rabbi N. N. explains the Biblical passage. Among the comments on single verses are many which are based on the difference of ḳeri and ketib as well as on the variant spellings of words, plene and defective. Many words, also, are explained according to the value of the letters or by analysis of their component parts as well as by the substitution of other vowels
33.
Midrash Hashkem
–
Midrash Hashkem, also known as Midrash ve-Hizhir is a purely haggadic midrash on the Pentateuch. The first part of the Munich codex, after which the work was published, is doubtless somewhat defective and it begins with a haggadic passage, which, belonging to Ex. viii. 16, is also in the earlier editions of Tanḥuma. The work was called Hashkem after the word in this introductory sentence. In the editions as well as in the codex this first passage,22, included in both Tanḥumas in the pericope Waera, is erroneously combined with a passage to Ex. x. No one, however, quotes Hashkem and We-Hizhir together as two different works. The haggadic portions are those mentioned above, also part i. pp. 4a et seq. pp. 19a et seq. p. 23a, p. 76b, pp. 115a et seq. 121b, p. 128b, part ii. pp. 34b et seq. p. 128b, etc. Several passages quoted by the old authors, but not found in the edition, Zunz, who closely examined the manuscript after which the edition was subsequently printed, comes to the conclusion that We-Hizhir and Hashkem are one and the same work. This view must be unhesitatingly accepted, the differences are not important, and both differences and omissions may be due to variations in the copies or to different revisions. The work, which is quoted as early as the middle of the 11th century as an authority, is assigned by Zunz to the tenth century. The assumption of the editor expressed even in the title, that Ḥefeẓ Alluf is the author of the work, the quotations from Hashkem by the old authors have been collected by Grünhut. This article incorporates text from a now in the public domain, Singer, Isidore. New York, Funk & Wagnalls Company
34.
Shir ha-Shirim Zutta
–
541, at Parma, was discovered by S. At the same time the midrash to Canticles only was published by S. Schechter, under the title Agadat Shir ha-Shirim, Shir ha-Shirim Zuṭa, or Agadat Shir ha-Shirim, does not at all resemble Shir ha-Shirim Rabbah, or Midrash Ḥazita. Although the two collections contain a few parallels, the Shir ha-Shirim Rabbah does not contain those numerous haggadot which especially distinguish the second collection. In this latter they occur in the first verse of the first chapter, in the verse of the same chapter, in the fifth verse of the same chapter. The Messianic haggadot may be derived from the Pirḳe Rabbi Eliezer, sheṭah, is in support of this supposition. Other passages are found in the Babylonian Talmud, the Pesiḳtot, the Midrash Rabbot, the Mekilta, Agadat Shir ha-Shirim is mainly quoted by Simeon Ḳara, in his Yalḳuṭ Shimoni, and by Machir b. Abba Mari, in his Yalḳuṭ ha-Makiri, the former used this midrash as a basis for his Yalḳuṭ on Canticles, but he quotes it also in his Yalḳuṭ on the other Biblical books. The name Pesiḳta Rabbati has been applied, in the Yalḳuṭ, to the Shir ha-Shirim Rabbah, while this midrash is always referred to as Midrash Shir ha-Shirim. Simeon Ḳara may have applied this name to the Shir ha-Shirim Rabbah because the two works were bound together, on the hand, the occurrence of the name may be due to an error of the copyist. This midrash is quoted in the Yalḳuṭ, as has been said above and it was frequently used also by Machir b. Abba Mari, who quotes it nineteen times under the title of Haggadat Shir ha-Shirim, in his Yalḳuṭ ha-Makiri and it is quoted also by other ancient authorities. Barzilai, in his commentary on the Sefer Yeẓirah, refers to it as Agadta Shir ha-Shirim and it may be added that passages of this midrash are found in Eleazar b. Tobiahs Leḳaḥ Ṭob and Isaac ibn Sahulahs Mashal ha-Ḳadmoni, although these do not mention the name of this midrash, S. Schechter supposes that they probably used ancient homiletic commentaries, among others the Agadat Shir ha-Shirim. Nor is the passage quoted from the Midrash Shir ha-Shirim by Menahem Zioni found in this midrash, Schechter endeavors to prove that the payyeṭan Solomon b. Judah ha-Babli, of the century, had this midrash before him. Jellinek, and especially to the Pereḳ R. Yoshiyahu, and holds that a still earlier might be ascribed to this midrash, namely. But considering that the Pirḳe Rabbi Eliezer, which was composed about the middle of the century, is one of the sources of the Agadat Shir ha-Shirim. S. Buber, in the introduction to his edition of the Midrash Zuṭa, S. Schechter, Aggadat Shir ha-Shirim and this article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain, Singer, Isidore, et al. eds
