Origins of Judaism Religion, History, and Literature in Late Antiquity A Twenty-Volume Collection of Essays and Articles Edited by Jacob Neusner University of South Florida with William Scott Green University of Rochester A Routledge Series This page intentionally left blank Origins of Judaism VOLUME XI Part 2 The Literature of Formative Judaism: The Midrash-Compilations Edited with a Preface by Jacob Neusner Routledge Taylor & Francis Group NEW YORK AND LONDON Published by Routledge 270 Madison Ave, New York NY 10016 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX 14 4RN Transferred to Digital Printing 2010 Introduction © 1990 by Jacob Neusner. All rights reserved. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data The Literature of formative Judaism. The Midrash­compilations / edited by Jacob Neusner with William Scott Green. p. cm. — (Origins of Judaism : vol. 11) ISBN 0­8240­8182­X (alk. paper) 1. Midrash—History and criticism. 2. Aggada—History and criticism. I. Neusner, Jacob. II. Green, William scott. III. Series. Bm 177.075 vol. 11 [BM514] 296′.09′015 s—dc20 [296.1′406] 90­13899 A complete list of articles in this series, indexed by volume and by author, may be found at the end of this volume. Publisher’s Note The publisher has gone to great lengths to ensure the quality of this reprint but points out that some imperfections in the original may be apparent. PREFACE In these volumes we turn to the canon, or holy literature, of Judaism. That literature covers what is called “the Oral Torah.” To understand the concept of the Oral Torah, we have to return to the generative myth of the Judaism that has predominated. For that Judaism appeals to a theory of revelation in two media of formulation and transmission, written and oral, in books and in memory. The written Torah is the Pentateuch and encompasses the whole of the Hebrew Scriptures of ancient Israel (the “Old Testament”). The Oral Torah is ultimately contained in and written down as the Mishnah, expanded and amplified by Tosefta, and the two Talmuds, on the one side, and the Midrash-compilations that serve to explain the written Torah, on the other. Let us then review the myth of the dual Torah and its literary expression. The Judaism that has predominated from ancient times to the present day finds its definitive statement in the myth that, when Moses received the Torah, revelation, from God at Mount Sinai, God gave the Torah through two media, writing and memory. In these volumes we address the canon, or holy books, of that Judaism. The important side is here. The written Torah of this Judaism of the dual Torah is represented by Scripture or the Old Testament. The other Torah, formulated orally and transmitted only in memory, was handed on for many generations, from Moses down to the great sages of the early centuries of the Common Era when it finally reached writing in documents produced by sages, who bore the honorific title, “rabbi,” “my lord.” Judaism may best be traced through the unfolding of its writings, because it was in writing, in study in academies, through the teaching of holy men (in contemporary times, women as well) qualified for saintli­ ness by learning—specifically mastery of the Torah through disciple­ ship—that that Judaism took shape. Just as one may write the history of Roman Catholic Christianity by tracing the story of the papacy, though that history would not be complete, and the history of Protestant Christianity through telling the story of the Bible in the world since the Reformation, so the history of the Judaism of the dual Torah takes shape in the tale of its holy books. A review of the written evidence for the Judaism of the dual Torah makes the leap from the Pentateuch, ca. 450 B.C., to the end of the second century, for the first of these groups of writings begins with the Mishnah, v Origins of Judaism a philosophical law book brought to closure at ca. A.D. 200, later called the first statement of the oral Torah. In its wake, the Mishnah drew tractate Abot, ca. A.D 250, a statement concluded a generation after the Mishnah on the standing of the authorities of the Mishnah; Tosefta, ca. A.D. 300, a compilation of supplements of various kinds to the statements in the Mishnah; and three systematic exegeses of books of Scripture or the written Torah, Sifra to Leviticus, Sifré to Numbers, and another Sifré, to Deuteronomy, of indeterminate date but possibly concluded by A.D. 300. These books overall form one stage in the unfolding of the Judaism of the dual Torah, in which emphasis is on issues of sanctification of the life of Israel, the people, in the aftermath of the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, in which, it was commonly held, Israel’s sancti­ fication came to full realization in the rites of sacrifice to God on high. The second set of the same writings begins with the Talmud of the Land of Israel, or Yerushalmi, generally supposed to have come to a conclusion at ca. A.D. 400, Genesis Rabbah, assigned to about the next half century, Leviticus Rabbah, ca. A.D. 450, Pesiqta deRab Kahana, ca. A.D. 450–500, and, finally, the Talmud of Babylonia or Bavli, assigned to the late sixth or early seventh century, ca. A.D. 600. The two Talmuds systematically interpret passages of the Mishnah, and the other documents, as is clear, do the same for books of the written Torah. The interpretation of Scripture in the Judaism of the dual Torah is collected in documents that bear the title of Midrash (pl.: Midrashim) meaning “exegesis.” The single striking trait of Midrash as produced by the Judaism of the dual Torah is the persistent appeal, in interpreting a verse or a theme of Scripture, to some other set of values or considerations than those contained within the verse or topic at hand. On that account rabbinic Midrash compares something to something else, as does a parable, or it explains something in terms of something else, as does allegory. Rabbinic Midrash reads Scripture within the principle that things never are what they seem. In late antiquity rabbinic Midrash-compilation mainly attended to the pentateuchal books, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. Some other treatments of biblical books important in synagogue liturgy, particularly the Five Scrolls, e.g., Lamentations Rabbati, Esther Rabbah, and the like, are supposed also to have reached closure at this time. This second set of writings introduces, alongside the paramount issue of Israel’s sanctification, the matter of Israel’s salvation, with doctrines of history, on the one side, and the Messiah, on the other, given prominence in the larger systemic statement. Let me briefly expand upon this skeletal account of the documents that define the problem solved by the documentary method of the study of Judaism. Between ca. 200, when autonomous government was well established again, and ca. 600, the continuous and ongoing movement of sages, holding positions of authority in the Jewish governments recog­ nized by Rome and Iran, as political leaders of the Jewish communities vi Preface of the Land of Israel (to just after 400 C.E.) and Babylonia (to about 500 C.E.), respectively, wrote two types of books. One sort extended, amplified, systematized, and harmonized components of the legal sys­ tem laid forth in the Mishnah. The work of Mishnah-exegesis produced four principal documents as well as an apologia for the Mishnah. This last—the rationale or apologia—came first in time, about a generation or so after the publication of the Mishnah itself. It was tractate Abot (ca. 250 C.E.), a collection of sayings attributed both to authorities whose names also occur in the Mishnah as well as to some sages who flourished after the conclusion of the Mishnah. These later figures, who make no appearance in that document, stand at the end of the compilation. The other three continuations of the Mishnah were the Tosefta, the Talmud of the Land of Israel (the Yerushalmi), and the Bavli. The Tosefta, containing a small portion of materials contemporaneous with those presently in the Mishnah and a very sizable portion secondary to, and dependent on the Mishnah, reached conclusion some time after ca. 300 and before ca. 400. The Yerushalmi closed at ca. 400. The Bavli, as we said, was completed by ca. 600. All these dates, of course, are rough guesses, but the sequence in which the documents made their appearance is not. The Tosefta addresses the Mishnah; its name means “supplement,” and its function was to supplement the rules of the original documents. The Yerushalmi mediates between the Tosefta and the Mishnah, com­ monly citing a paragraph of the Tosefta in juxtaposition with a paragraph of the Mishnah and commenting on both, or so arranging matters that the paragraph of the Tosefta serves, just as it should, to complement a paragraph of the Mishnah. The Bavli, following the Yerushalmi by about two centuries, pursues its own program, which, as we said, was to link the two Torahs and restate them as one. The stream of exegesis of the Mishnah and exploration of its themes of law and philosophy flowed side by side with a second. This other river coursed up out of the deep wells of the written Scripture. But it surfaced long after the work of Mishnah-exegesis was well underway and followed the course of that exegesis, now extended to Scripture. The exegesis of the Hebrew Scriptures, a convention of all systems of Judaism from before the conclusion of Scripture itself, obviously occupied sages from the very origins of their group. No one began anywhere but in the encounter with the Written Torah. But the writing down of exegeses of Scripture in a systematic way, signifying also the formulation of a program and a plan for the utilization of the Written Torah in the unfolding literature of the Judaism taking shape in the centuries at hand, developed in a distinct circumstance. Specifically, one fundamental aspect of the work of Mishnah- exegesis began with one ineluctable question: How does a rule of the Mishnah relate to, or rest upon, a rule of Scripture? That question demanded an answer, so that the status of the Mishnah’s rules, and of the vii Origins of Judaism Mishnah itself, could find a clear definition. Standing by itself, the Mishnah bore no explanation of why Israel should obey its rules and accept its vision. Brought into relationship to Scriptures, in mythic language, viewed as part of the Torah, the Mishnah gained access to the source of authority operative in Israel—the Jewish people. Accordingly, the work of relating the Mishnah’s rules to those of Scripture got under way alongside the formation of the Mishnah’s rules themselves. Collecting and arranging exegeses of Scripture as these related to passages of the Mishnah first reached literary form in the Sifra to Leviticus, and in two books, both called Sifré, one to Numbers, the other to Deuteronomy. All three compositions accomplished much else. For, even at that early stage, exegeses of passages of Scripture in their own context, not just for the sake of Mishnah-exegesis, attracted attention. But a principal motif in all three books concerned the issue of Mishnah-Scripture relationships. A second, still more fruitful path also emerged from the labor of Mishnah-exegesis. As the work of Mishnah-exegesis got under way, in the third century, exegetes of the Mishnah and others undertook a parallel labor. It was to work through verses of Scripture in exactly the same way—word for word, phrase for phrase, line for line—in which, to begin with, the exegetes of the Mishnah pursued the interpretation and explanation of the Mishnah. To state matters simply, precisely the types of exegesis that dictated the way in which sages read the Mishnah now guided their reading of Scripture as well. And, as people began to collect and organize comments in accord with the order of sentences and paragraphs of the Mishnah, they found the stimulation to collect and organize comments on clauses and verses of Scripture. This kind of work got under way in the Sifra and the two Sifrés. It reached massive and magnificent fulfillment in Genesis Rabbah, which, as its name tells us, presents a line-for-line reading of the book of Genesis. Beyond these two modes of exegesis and the organization of exegeses in books—first on the Mishnah then on Scripture—lies yet a third. To understand it, we once more turn back to the Mishnah’s great exegetes, represented to begin with in the Yerushalmi. While the original exegesis of the Mishnah in the Tosefta addressed the document through a line by line commentary, responding only in discrete and self-contained units of discourse, authors gathered for the Yerushalmi developed an­ other mode of discourse entirely. They treated not phrases or sentences but principles and large-scale conceptual problems. They dealt not alone with a given topic, a subject and its rule, but with an encompassing problem, a principle and its implications for a number of topics and rules. This far more discursive and philosophical mode of thought produced for Mishnah-exegesis, in somewhat smaller volume but in much richer contents, sustained essays on principles cutting across specific rules. And for Scripture the method of sustained and broad-ranging discourse resulted in a second type of exegetical work, beyond that focused on viii Preface words, phrases, and sentences. Discursive exegesis is represented, to begin with, in Leviticus Rabbah, a document that reached closure, people generally suppose, sometime after Genesis Rabbah, thus between 400 and 500, one might guess. Leviticus Rabbah presents not phrase-by-phrase systematic exegeses of verses in the book of Leviticus, but a set of thirty-seven topical essays. These essays, syllogistic in purpose, take the form of citations and comments on verses of Scripture to be sure. But the compositions range widely over the far reaches of the Hebrew Scriptures while focusing narrowly upon a given theme. Moreover, they make quite distinctive points about that theme. Their essays constitute compositions, not merely composites. Whether devoted to God’s favor to the poor and humble or to the dangers of drunkenness, the essays, exegetical in form, discursive in character, correspond to the equivalent legal essays, amply represented in the Yerushalmi. Thus in this other mode of Scripture-interpretation, too, the framers of the exegeses accomplished what the Yerushalmi’s exegetes of the Mishnah were doing in the same way at the same time. We move rapidly past yet a third mode of Scriptural exegesis, one in which the order of Scripture’s verses is left far behind, and in which topics, not passages of Scripture, take over as the mode of organizing thought. Represented by Pesiqta de Rab Kahana, Lamentations Rabbati, and some other collections conventionally assigned to the sixth and seventh centuries, these entirely discursive compositions move out in their own direction, only marginally relating in mode of discourse to any counterparts in the Yerushalmi (or in the Bavli). At the end of the extraordinary creative age of Judaism, the authors of units of discourse collected in the Bavli drew together the two, up-to- then distinct, modes of organizing thought, either around the Mishnah or around Scripture. They treated both Torahs, oral and written, as equally available in the work of organizing large-scale exercises of sustained inquiry. So we find in the Bavli a systematic treatment of some tractates of the Mishnah. And within the same aggregates of discourse, we also find (in somewhat smaller proportion to be sure, roughly 60% to roughly 40% in a sample made of three tractates) a second principle of organizing and redaction. That principle dictates that ideas be laid out in line with verses of Scripture, themselves dealt with in sequence, one by one, just as the Mishnah’s sentences and paragraphs come under analysis, in cogent order and one by one. So much for the written evidence that forms the arena of inquiry. There are three distinct modes of organizing sustained discourse in the canon of the Judaism of the dual Torah. These statements are, respectively, those built around the exegesis of the oral Torah, the Mishnah (hence the Tosefta and two Talmuds), second, those that serve to amplify the written Torah, the Midrash-compilations, and, finally, ix