Mekhilta d'R. Ishmael

The present chapter traces how the rabbis in the tractate of Hagigah developed the biblical commands concerning cultic pilgrimage into laws for a bygone Jerusalem temple pilgrimage to see and be seen by God. Our investigation points to how the desire for, and loss of, the sight of God’s face punctuates and centers the Babylonian Talmud tractate of Hagigah. The biblical commandment to "see the face of God three times a year" allowed the rabbis to conjure forms and narratives of pilgrimage in an age of Greek and Roman "visual piety" but without the Jerusalem temple. The chapter shows how in varying ways earlier and later rabbis construct a pilgrimage of reciprocal vision (in which pilgrim and god mutually behold and are beheld), particularly in the Babylonian Talmud which emphasizes "homovisuality."

The article deals with several statements, privileged to Rabbi Yehoshu’a, in Mekhilta De-Rabbi Yishma’el. All of them about the reward of commandments. Raviv presents the Biblical context and its exegetical questions and their connections with the statements. The common idea in the statements is that the reward of commandments connected to commandments. This idea is close to ancient ideas in Psalms and  other ancient sources as About the Reward and the Punishment (Philo) or the Thanksgiving Scroll. The idea that the reward of commandments connected to commandments is different from that other ideas because its emphasis is the commandment itself. This idea can be a controversy to similar ideas their emphasis was too spiritual. Another possibility is the exegetical one - Rabbi Yehoshu’a created interpretation to several  exegetical questions like: Why Israel got commandments before Sinnay?; Why in Marra? Lately the idea was separated from its exegetical source and the sages used it to their relevant theological needs.

המאמר נוגע באחת משאלות היסוד של חקר פרשנות המקרא בספרות חז"ל. הוא דן בשאלת המתודות המאפיינות את ראשיתה של פרשנות המקרא והיחס ביניהן. המחברת מציגה שלוש דוגמאות מתוך מסכת ויסע שבמכילתא דר"י, בהן ניכרת התחזקות השימוש במתודה המדרשית במהלך יצירתו של החומר במכילתא. במתודה המדרשית, להבדיל מן המתודה הביאורית, נתפרש הטקסט ללא שמירה על גבולותיו, דהיינו, ללא שמירה על כללי הלשון, ההקשר או ההיגיון. בשלושת הדוגמאות ניכר שהתחזק השימוש במתודה המדרשית בכמה אופנים: בדוגמא הראשונה, הרחיבה הפרשנות המדרשית את המשמעות המצומצמת, שהציע ר' יהושע במתודה הביאורית, בעזרת קריאה החורגת מחוקי הלשון; בדוגמא הבאה, ראינו כיצד ר' יהושע פתר בעיה של סתירה בכתוב המקריאה בעזרת תוספת תחבירית, תוך יצירת פירוש ביאורי, ומאוחר יותר ר' יצחק השתמש בתוספת התחבירית והרחיב בהרבה את המשמעות העולה מן הכתוב ויצר פירוש מדרשי; בדוגמא השלישית, הצגנו דיון של חכמים מדורות שונים בנוגע לזיהוי העץ שהושלך למרה. הסתבר שרק ברובד העתיק של החומר הוצע פירוש ביאורי (מטעמו של ר' יהושע) ובדורות מאוחרים, המשיכו החכמים רק את דרכו של ר' אלעזר המודעי ויצרו פירושים מדרשיים. בדברי רבן שמעון בן גמליאל, בהמשך המכילתא, ראינו התחזקות נוספת של המגמה המדרשית של ר' אלעזר המודעי, תוך הזנחת העניין במשמעות ההיסטורית של הכתוב המקראי. בסוף המאמר טענה המחברת שדוגמאות אלה מלמדות שהמתודה המדרשית התחזקה כבר בזמן יצירתה של המכילתא. המכילתא דר"י היא אחד מן הטקסטים הקדומים בספרות חז"ל והדבר עשוי ללמד על אופיה של פרשנות המקרא כבר בראשיתה של ספרות זו.

This article deals with one of the fundamental issues of ancient biblical exegesis found in the writings of the Sages:  the Sages’ differentiation between various exegetical methodologies.  Whereas most studies in the past related to this issue by clarifying the term “simple exegesis," this article presents anew the simple exegesis methodology by means of a different expression – explicatory exegesis – and thereby examines the issue.
Thus, the issue was examined from two different angles: the first, the cultural context surrounding the writings of the Sages, and the second, with exegetical material found in the Mekhilta d’Rabbi Yishmael.  The cultural context revealed that ancient biblical exegesis beyond the pale of the Sages is characterized by a clear differentiation between exegetical methodologies, as perceived in the works of Philo and the Church fathers, consequently raising the probability that this delineation exists also in the literature of the Sages.  The second analysis demonstrates that there are a number of exegetical controversies concentrated within the Mekhilta d’Rabbi Yishmael.  For the discussion presented here, they are labeled "methodological controversies," essentially between Rabbis Joshua and Elazar haModa’i.  It is clear that the Sages and the editors of the Mekhilta differentiated between the explicatory methodology and the midrashic one.

Research has so far been unsuccessful in determining the creed of the Hebrew lexicographer Menahem ben Saruq. Though most probably suspected of Karaism already in his day, there is no conclusive and decisive evidence to prove whether he was Karaite or Rabbanite. In this article, I suggest that Menahem’s choice of verses in one of his lexicon entries reflects a textually non-trivial interpretation originating in midrash, thereby suggesting that he was, in fact, Rabbanite.

In the study of Rabbinic Literature it is commonly assumed that no real change ever took place in the character of their Biblical interpretation, and that the rabbis always rejected historical interpretation and engaged primarily in ethical interpretation. This article presents several examples which indicate that the rabbis' interest in the ethical meaning of the Bible grew in the course of the transmission of the tradition, and took the place of their interest in the historical understanding of the Biblical verses. This study points to sveral ways in which the rabbis' interest in the ethical meaning replaced thir interest in its historical meaning: by adding ethical interpretation to earlier historical interpretation; by shortening earlier traditions while omitting the earlier historical exegesis; by changing earlier historical exegesis into earlier exegesis; by broadening and deepening earier ethical exegesis.
Raviv suggests that these examples, in the context of a broader systematic study, are likely to reveal a possible trend of methodological change which Biblical exegesis underwent in the curse of generations of Rabinic literature, from exegesis dealing both with historical and ethical matters to exegesis whose main interest was in clarifying the ethical meaning of the Biblical text.