MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

A STUDY

IN

THE

EARLY HISTORY OF THE HALAKAH

BY

JACOB

Z:

LAUTERBACH,

PROFESSOR

PH.D.

HEBREW UNION COLLEGE

CINCINNATI,

O.

NEW YORK
THE BLOCK PUBLISHING COMPANY
1916

PRINTED IN ENGLAND

AT THE OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS

TO THE MEMORY
OF

MY FATHER

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

A STUDY IN THE EARLY HISTORY OF THE

HALAKAH
I

THE

teachings of the Halakah, as preserved to us in

the tannaitic

have been

literature,

given

by teacher to

disciple and transmitted from generation to generation in

two different forms, namely, Midrash and Mishnah. The

Midrash Torah

one, Midrash, shortened from

the

Halakah

Torah.

It

as an

1
,

represents

and exposition of the

interpretation

teaches the Halakah together with

its

scriptural

connexion with the passage from the

Pentateuch, on which it is based or from which it can

proof, that

in

is,

be derived, thus forming a halakic commentary to the

This form is
written law contained in the Pentateuch.
especially used in our halakic Midrashim, Sifra, Sifre,

Mekilta, but
1

The term

some

also found in

it is

m?D

from

min

to

and

parts of the collections

search, inquire, investigate

means

accordingly means an inquiry into

the meaning of the Torah, an exposition of all laws and decisions which
can be discovered in the words of the Torah. In this sense the term
research, inquiry

Midrash Torah

and

is

K>Tlft

used in the Talmud

(b.

Kiddushin 49 b) where

designates the halakic interpretation or exposition of the Torah.

it

As we

now

have many Midrashim to the Torah of a haggadic character, the term

Midrash Torah would be too indefinite to designate an halakic exposition
of the Torah. A haggadic exposition of the Torah would also be a Midrash

The more

Torah.
to

designate

article

specific

a halakic

Midrash Halakah

L.

term Midrash Halakah

interpretation
in the

is

of the Torah.

therefore

now

used

See the writer s

Jewish Encyclopaedia, VIII, pp. 569-72.

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

of our Mishnah and Tosefta, as well as in

Midrash-Baraitot scattered

Babylonian Talmud.

The

in

many

so-called

both the Palestinian and the

other form, the Mishnah, repre

Halakah as an independent work, giving its dicta

as such, without any scriptural proof, and teaching them
independently of and not connected with the words of the

sents the

For

written law.

Halakah

as

this reason the

is

that

is,

merely

especially used in our

Baraitot scattered in the

2
parts of our halakic Midrashim.

some

Zur

many

This form

also designated

Mishnah and the Tosefta, but

collections of the

found in

is

Halakot

or in the plural

rules or decisions.

Mishnah

it

is

also

Talmud and

in

(See D. Hoffmann,

Einleitung in die halachischen Midraschim^ Berlin,

1887, p.

Of

3.)

these two

Midrash

is

times,

of

teaching the Halakah,

the older and the

Midrash was the

in

forms

original form,

Mishnah the
and was used

later.

of the Halakah.

The

dicta

was

of the

The

in the earliest

the very beginnings of the Halakah.

quite self-evident, as the Midrash

the

This

is

in reality the origin

Halakah had

their

an inquiry into the full

meaning of the written law from which alone the earliest
Halakah derived its authority.

source in the Midrash Torah,

The

i.e.

returned Babylonian exiles, constituting the

new

Jewish community, reorganized by Ezra and Nehemiah,

accepted the written Torah, so to speak, as their constitu
tion.
They entered into a covenant by oath, to keep and
follow the laws of Moses as contained in the book read
2

As

many

the difference is only in form, it is not surprising to find that very

of the Halakot are cast in both forms. Very often the same Halakot

which are found

in the halakic

Midrashim together with their scriptural

proofs are also found in the Mishnah and Tosefta without scriptural proofs

as independent Halakot.

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

them by Ezra (Neh.

to

8 and 10. 30).

The Book

of the

and interpreted by Ezra, was for

only authority they were bound to follow.
Whatever was not given in the book, they were not bound

Law,
them

to

therefore, as read

the

All the religious

accept.

and the

practices

honoured customs and even the traditional laws,

if

were such, had to receive the sanction of the written

timethere

Law

be absolutely binding upon the people. This

means, that the practices, customs, &c., had to be recog

in order to

nized as implied in the written

The

meaning.

Law

Law or

contained in

its fuller

teachers, therefore, interpreted the written

so as to include in

it

or derive from

it

all

those

practices. Thus, the teachings of the Halakah

such rules, customs, practices, and traditional laws

customs and
(for all

had to be represented as an
This,
interpretation or an exposition of the written Law.
the Halakah)

constituted

as

we have

seen above, means, to be given in Midrash-form.

expressly stated of Ezra that he explained and

It is

Torah

interpreted the

heart

interpret

(Ezra
the

it,

(c

nii>)

and to teach

We

7. 10).

Book

give to

search

to

of the

the

and that he

meaning

of

in Israel statutes

the

set his

Law,

to

and judgements

learn from this, that Ezra taught only

Law

with such interpretations as he could

His successors, the Soferim, who were the

it.

earliest teachers of the

all their

to the people,

Halakah, did the same.

They gave
Book of

teachings merely as interpretations to the

the Law.

Indeed, the very

them because

it

name Soferim was given

characterized their

to

manner of teaching.

name D^SID is derived from 1BD the Book*. It means

Bookmen and it designated a class of people who occupied

This
*

themselves with the

and who based

Book of the Law, who

all their

teachings upon

interpreted

this

it

book excluB 2

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

sively (Frankel, Hodegetica in

Dor,

p. 3,

and Weiss,

p. 47).

I,

For a long period

used

Mischnam,

in

this

Mid rash-form was

teaching the Halakah. This

is

the only form

confirmed by reliable

traditions reported to us in Rabbinic literature.

contained in the following passage in the Pal.

is

report

One such

Talmud (Moed katan

mm
Who

b
)

ruw bs -IK
may ^nx nwK-n

rnr^n

niyi

One who

83

III, 7,

?nan Yc^

n>pm

IDN

to be considered a scholar

is

JINI

Kin

Hezekiah

says,

has studied the Halakot as an addition to and in

connexion with the Torah. 3

you say was

Said to him R. Jose,

What

[correct] in former times, but in our day, even

[if one has studied merely detached] Halakot, [he is to be

Here it is plainly stated that in
regarded as a scholar].

(nWNin) the only form of teaching Halakot

earlier times
8

The term
iyi

Yiyi

milTl

means
Is

it

addition
as, for instance, in the phrase:
necessary to mention the custom in Judea as an
,

addition to the law indicated in the Scriptures?

also found in the plural form,

e.

(b.

additions

Kiddushin 6

a).

It is

Erubin 83

a).

The

(b.

here means, therefore, as an addition to the Torah,

to teach the Halakot not independently but as additions to the passages

expression
i.

min

nmVl

in the

*1iyi

Torah from which they are derived. In almost the same sense
by the commentator Pne Mosheh, ad loc.

it is

also interpreted
It

should also be noticed that in

to be called a student (HJI^)

Halakot.

b.

Kiddushin 49 a Hezekiah says that

if one has studied merely detached

enough

This, however, does not contradict his saying in our passage in

the p. Talmud.

From

it is

For D3n TlD^n

is

a scholar of a higher degree of learning.

Megillah 26 b it is evident that the student called ilJISMs not as

advanced as the scholar called D3n *PD/TI. To be considered a scholar,
b.

Hezekiah tells us, one must

is designated by the name D3PI TD7H
study the Halakot in the Midrash-form. For even after the Mishnah-form
such as

had become popular, the Midrash was considered the proper form to be
used by advanced scholars. See Guttmann, Zur Einleitung in die Halakah,
Budapest, 1909,

p. 20.

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

was

as an addition to

Law,

that

is

and

connexion with the written

in

to say, in the Midrash-form.

one could not acquire

therefore,

Halakah,

i.

become a

e.

the

for

Midrash,

knowledge

scholar, except

good

very

In those days,

reason

of

the

by learning the
the

that

halakic

teachings were not imparted in any other form.

Sherira

Gaon who no doubt drew upon

likewise reports in his Epistle (Neubauer,

in the earlier

that

reliable sources

M. .7., ch.

I, p.

15)

period of the second temple, in the

days of the earlier teachers, all the teachings of the Halakot

were given in the manner in which they are found in our

and

Sifra

scholars

Sifre

that

is,

in the

Midrash-form. 4

have, accordingly, recognized

it

Modern

as an established

Midrash was originally the exclusive

teachings of the Halakah were given.

historic fact that the

form

which

in

all

Not only were those Halakot which were derived from

scriptural passage by means of interpretation taught

some

Midrash-form, that

in

is

to

say in connexion with the

passages which served as proof, but also such Halakot

and teachings as were of purely traditional origin rules,
practices, and customs that had no scriptural basis at all

were likewise taught in this manner. The latter were taught

in conjunction with some scriptural passage with which
they could

in

some manner be connected, or together with

certain written laws to which they were related, either as

4

The

passage in the letter of Sherira

Gaon reads

thus

tnpw wpn KroSn Ten p*m in^j

DIS& ^Ep pan rw:j.
iin NITYIN pn

OP tnpm
"on

prf?

them
i.

i.e.

HBD1

N"\DD1

i&npn

tnn

They taught

the Halakot. only in the form used in our Sifra and Sifre,

Midrash.

e.
6

N. Krochmal in More Nebuke Ha-Zeman, porta XIII, Lemberg, 1851,

pp. 166-7 Z. Frankel in Hodegetica in

Mischnam Weiss, Dor Dorwe-Dorshow

and Mabo la-Mechilta; Oppenheim,

Toledot ha-Mishnah

II

D. Hoffmann, Die

erste

Mischnah, Berlin, 1882

in

Beth Talmud,

and others.

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

(See D. Hoffmann, Die erste

corollary or modification.

This procedure was

Mischnah, Berlin, 1882, pp. .5-7.)
necessary, because the only recognized authority was the

Book

written

of the

Law

text-book in teaching.

which the teachers used as their

teaching out of this

in

However,

text-book, they gave not only the meanings of words and

the explanations of each written law, but also additional
rules as well as modifications to

may be

some

All of this

laws.

included in an exposition (Bm&) of the Torah and

properly be taught in connexion with the text.

could

Thus the Midrash-form could continue

to be in exclusive

use for teaching the Halakah, even after the

of time,

course

came

include

to

latter, in

the

and

laws

traditional

customs, as well as new institutions and decrees issued and

proclaimed by the teachers themselves

in their capacity as

religious authorities.

The Mishnah-form, on
later

It was introduced a

date.

Midrash-form
6

long

onipo

p.

iv,

onn

n^

time

after
it.

remarks about the Soferim

D:

ibba

*opi>

much

of a

is

and was used side by side with

Weiss, Mabo la-Mechilta,

ppwi mnan

the other hand,

the

At

DSVPBI

Although the instance mentioned by him as proof for his statement is not
a teaching of the Soferim (see below, note 55), yet the statement as such
is

correct.

The Soferim

or those

who

only taught

could include in their teachings altogether

by themselves as
scriptural laws.

religious

authorities,

Only we may assume

in

the Midrash-form

new laws and

decrees, issued

by connecting them with the

that

it

rarely

happened

that they

taught a traditional law or a decree of their own merely in connexion with

some scriptural law. In most cases, the Soferim, who had charge of the
text of the books of the law, could

manage

to indicate in the text itself,

by means of certain signs and slight alterations, any traditional custom

or decree of their own.
Thus, these same decrees could be taught as
interpretations

of the written

also below, notes 36

law.

See N. Krochmal,

37.
Compare
7
Georg Aicher (Das Alte Testament

pp. 165

if.)

op.

tit.,

p. 167.

and

in der

Mischnah,

Fr.-i.-Br., 1906,

stands alone in the assumption that the Mishnah

is

older than

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

no time

method

did

the

Mishnah-form become the

to be

in

exclusive

Halakah, because the Midrash

for teaching the

never ceased

use.

At

what date

just

Mishnah-form was introduced, that

is

to say, just

the teachers of the Halakah began, for the

first

this

when

time, to

teach Halakot independently of the written law, has, to

my

knowledge, not yet been ascertained. Sherira Gaon who,

as we have seen, informs us that at some period in earlier
times the Midrash-form was the only one in use, does not
state exactly

how

long that period lasted, and does not

mention when the Mishnah-form was introduced.

Neither

any other gaonic report to tell us when

9
Hoffmann (op. cit., pp. 12-13) states
happened.
there

is

this
that,

according to the views held by the Geonim, the Mishnah-

form was

first

introduced

Shammai, but he

To my
literature

fails

in

the

knowledge, there is no
for the views ascribed

Geonim.
the Midrash.

days

of

Hillel

and

to bring proof for this statement.

Hoffmann bases

his

foundation

theory

This cannot be maintained.

in

by Hoffmann

gaonic
to

the

on the spurious

His statement

(p.

the appearance of scriptural proof in connexion with the Halakah

to the radical changes effected by the catastrophe of the year 70

64) that

was due

hardly
needs any refutation. The many Halakot in the Midrash form given by
teachers in the time of the Temple as well as the disputes between the
Sadducees and Pharisees, hinging upon different interpretations of scriptural
,

passages as bases for their respective Halakah, ought to have shown Aicher
to what extent Midrash was used before the year 70.
8 We must
emphasize this fact against the theory advanced by Weiss
and Oppenheim and also by Jacob Bassfreund in his Zur Redaction der
Mischnah (Trier, 1908, pp. 19-24), that there was a time when the Midrash-

form was altogether abandoned, and the teachings of the Halakah given
shall see that this theory is untenable
exclusively in Mishnah-form.

We

(below, notes 15, 22, and 53).

9

The account given in the letter of Sherira stops very abruptly.

the discussion at p. 108 of this essay.

See

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

responsum found in Shaare Teshubah, No. 20, and ascribed

Hai Gaon, 10 in which the following passage is found

to

rw

IBS

mo

ohyn pDDrm

nw
I

rn

jpm

-J^KI

&n

rayona

^en

&6tf

Know,

w vn
&"i

yn

n":i"n

rrnna

Moses our Teacher

until

Moses on

However, from
on the world became impoverished, and
to

Law was

the glory of the

wan rro JWE

were six hundred orders of Mishnah

God gave them

the time of Hillel

ny

pi wi npoi?
upn N^ mm ^

that from the days of

Hillel the Elder, there

just as

i?i>n

Sinai.

diminished, so that, beginning

with Hillel and Shammai, they arranged only six orders.

It is evident that this responsum cannot be taken to
represent a reliable gaonic tradition, as

based on the haggadic passage

in

it

is

apparently

Hagigah 14

a,

and

is

Aside from

accordingly of merely legendary character.

this, the passage does not say what Hoffmann has read
It does not even deal with the origin of the
into it.

Mishnah-form.

sum

that

its

If anything,

we can

see

from

the Mishnah-form was very old, and that

Moses on
10

this respon

author, quite to the contrary, assumed that

Sinai.

He

11

it

was given to

deals merely with the origin of six

This responsum had been added by some later hand to the responsa
Comp. Harkavy, Studien

of Hai Gaon, but does not belong to the Gaon.

und

Mitteilungen,

IV, p. xiv.

The

fact that this

report

is

repeated in

Seder Tannaim we-Amoraim, (Breslau, 1871. p. 29) and in Sefer Hakanah,

p. 8ib, and in S. Chinon s Sefer Kritot (Book Yemot Olam, Amsterdam
1709, p. 20 a) does not in the least alter its legendary character and cannot

make

it

more

reliable, for the

the same source.

authors of

all

these works drew from one and

This source cannot be of a more

the Midrash Abkir, from

reliable character

which the Yalkut (Genesis,

than

sec. 42) quotes the

statement that Methuselah studied 900 orders of Mishnah, pHi? rbTNjfrft

mo

II

mKD &

The belief

rw

that the

rrni

run THM.

Mishnah was given

to

Moses on Sinai

is

repeatedly

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

orders of
in the

were

Mishnah which he assumed

to

have been extant

These six orders

days of Hillel and Shammai.

but a poor small remnant of the six

in his opinion

hundred orders which Moses received from God on Sinai

and which were extant

the days of Hillel

till

when the

world became impoverished and the glory of the Torah

Hoffmann

diminished.

arrives at his interpretation of this

responsum by arbitrarily giving two different meanings to

one and the same term used by the author twice in one
sentence.

the
1

six

He

states (p. 13) that

when

hundred orders of Mishnah

Mishnah

in

the

he

Gaon speaks

is

using the term

a broad sense to designate traditional law in

the Midrash-form and not in the Mishnah-form, but

the

Gaon speaks

of the reduced

days of Hillel and

in a

of

when

extant in the

six orders

Mishnah

Shammai, he uses the term

narrow sense to designate only independent Halakot

Mishnah-form. This distinction is extremely arbitrary.

in the

Furthermore, when Hoffmann concludes his argument with

(ibid., p. 13) that No doubt the six orders of

the remark

Mishnah introduced
were, like

days of Hillel and Shammai

our present Mishnah, composed in the form of
in the

independent Halakah, and by this new form were distin

guished from the earlier form of teaching he no longer
,

expressed in the Haggadah. See

In the Pirke de-Rabbi Eliezer, ch.

b.

Berakot 53 and

xlvi,

it

is

p.

Hagigah

I, 8,

76

d.

said that during the forty days

which Moses spent on the mountain, receiving the Law, he studied the
(tOpD) in the daytime and Mishnah at night. In Pesikta

Scriptures

Rabbati

(Friedmann,

p. 14 b)

Mishnah written, but God

other nations

it

was

told

it

him

is

said that

Moses wished

to

have the

that in order to distinguish Israel from

better that the

Mishnah should be given

orally, so that the other nations should not be able to claim

it

to

Israel

for themselves.

See also Tanhuma, Ki-Tissa (Buber, pp. 58 b and 59 a), and p. Hagigah, /. c.
The author of our responsum had as his authority such haggadic sayings

when he spoke

of the Mishnah

which God gave

to

Moses on

Sinai.

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

10

gives the views of the author of the responsum, but his

And

own.

Thus we
of the time

these views are absolutely wrong. 12

see that there

when

is

talmudic

or gaonic

We

innovation.

in

gaonic literature,

this innovation in the

the Halakah took place.

14

no mention

Neither

sources

not told

are

any report

about the

why

new form

desirable to introduce a

form of teaching

there

is

13

cause

in

of this

was necessary or

it

of teaching Halakah

alongside of the older Midrash-form.

Modern
questions

both to

have

scholars

fix

attempted to answer these

the date and to give the reasons

method of

for this innovation in the

the various theories advanced

unsatisfactory.

without solid
12

There

is

by

However,

teaching.

these scholars are

all

mere guess-work
proof or valid foundation. It will be shown

They

no doubt

are the result of

Shammai there were no

The responsum in Shaare Teshubah,
certain Gaon died they found that he had

that at the time of Hilleland

Mishnah-collections like our Mishnah.

which

187,

tells

us that

when

the six orders of the Mishnah of the days of Hillel and Shammai, which had

been hidden away,

is

See

spurious and legendary.

S. D. Luzzatto,

Beth

Although there were in the times of Hillel and

Shammai collections of Halakot composed in Mishnah-form, this form was

ha-Ozar, pp. 55b~56a.

not

new

to

them and could not be the

them from the form of teaching used

had been even before
Halakot

in the

collection,

Hillel

Mishnah-form.

he did not arrange

it

characteristic

before.

which distinguished

For, as

we

shall see, there

and Shammai collections of independent

And if Hillel himself composed a Mishnahin order,

and did not divide

as Pineles (Darkah shel Torah, pp. 8-9) and Bassfreund

it

into tractates

(Zur Redaction der

Mischnah, p. 25) assume. The arguments brought forward by the latter to

prove that Hillel s Mishnah-collection was arranged and divided into tractates
are not convincing.
13

14

On Saadya s opinion see further below, pp. nsff.

There is, however, as we shall see in the course of this essay, a report

in the

Talmud

stating until

when

the Midrash-form

was

in exclusive use.

This talmudic report has been overlooked or else not correctly understood,
for not one of the scholars dealing with the problem of fixing the date of
the beginning of the Mishnah-form has referred to

it.

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

that

some

them

are based

II

upon inaccurate reasoning, and

all

of

are in contradiction to certain established historic

facts.

We

have already seen that the theory which Hoffmann

ascribes to the Geonim has no foundation in gaonic
literature and that it is altogether Hoffmann s theory.
But, no matter whose

it

maintained. 15

first

In the

the theory itself cannot be

is,

place,

there

were

before the time of Hillel and

collections

Rosenthal has proved

Mischnah, Erster

Mishnah-

Shammai,

as

(Ueber deu Zusammenhang der

Teil, 2te Aufl., Strassburg, 1909).

In the

second place, the introduction of a new form necessarily

precedes any collection of Halakot composed in this
form.

new

must be quite plain that there were individual,

It

detached Halakot taught in the Mishnah-form (and not in

the Midrash-form) before any collection of such detached

Halakot could be made.

Rosenthal

(op. cit., p.

pendent Halakot

in)

Accordingly,

if

we assume with

that a collection of such inde

Mishnah-form was already arranged

time of Simeon ben Shetah, we have to go still farther
back in fixing the time when the teachers first began to
in the

in the

separate the Halakah from

its

scriptural proof

and teach

it

This would bring us to about

one hundred years before the time of Hillel and Shammai.

independently, as Mishnah.

Not only
15

is

this theory of

Hoffmann wrong

in respect to

Compare also Bassfreund (op. cit. pp. 18 ff.) who likewise seeks to
Hoffmann s theory. Some of Bassfreund s arguments, however, are
t

refute

not sound.
Hillel

He

is

altogether

the Mishnah

was

wrong

in

assuming that

for a long time before

the exclusive form used in the teaching of the

Halakah, and that Hillel was the first to reintroduce the Midrash-form.
He confuses the development of the Midrash methods which were furthered

by

Hillel

with the use of the Midrash-form which had no need of being

it was never abandoned
(see above, note 8, and

introduced by Hillel since

below, note 22).

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

12

the date given for the introduction of the Mishnah-form,

but

it

is

also unsatisfactory in regard to the cause of this

innovation.

According to this theory, the Mishnah-form was intro

duced in order to assist the memory in mastering the
contents of the traditional law. 16

However, it is difficult
to see how the teachers could have considered the new
form of greater aid to the memory than the old form.
This new form is on the contrary quite apt to make it

more

the Midrash-form.

it.

On

seems to us that

it

is

memory to retain Halakot taught

The written Law, being the text

book, each passage in it, as

mental association, to recall

based upon

It

memory.

of a task for the

less

in

the

difficult for

is

it

being read, helps, by

the

all

the other hand,

halakic
is

it

teachings

much

harder

remember detached Halakot given in an independent

form, especially when they are not arranged systematically
to

or topically but merely grouped together.

keep

in

mind, was actually the

in the earlier

Mishnah

mode

collections.

Hoffmann himself must have

This,

we must

of arrangement used

17

felt

that this theory

was

not satisfactory, for later in his book he advances another

16

The same reason

is

also given

by Frankel and Weiss.

They

all

seem

have been influenced by the haggadic sayings found in the Talmud,

to former
sayings which exaggerate the number of Halakot known

to

generations.
17

Hoffmann makes the mistake of assuming

(op.

cit.,

pp. 13, 15, and 48)

that simultaneously with the separation of the Halakot from their scriptural

came the grouping of such detached Halakot into orders and treatises,
have them. But this is absolutely wrong. The earlier Mishnah went
was finally arranged
through many different forms of grouping before it

basis

as

we

See the writer s

according to subjects and divided into treatises and orders.
The opinions expressed
article in the Jewish Encyclopaedia, VII, p. 611.

by the writer there on page 610 (following Hoffmann) are hereby

retracted.

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

13

and altogether

different theory (op. cit., p. 48).

According
second theory, the innovation was not made for the
purpose of aiding the memory, and was not made in the

to this

Here Hoffmann assumes

days of Hillel and Shammai.

was

that the Mishnah-form

introduced in the days

first

The purpose

of the later disciples of Hillel and Shammai.

of the innovation, he explains, was to maintain the unity of

the Halakah

by minimizing the

differences of opinion

and

eliminating the disputes about the halakic teachings which

these very disciples of Hillel and

arose

among

These

disputes,

Hoffmann

tells us,

were

in

many

Shammai.
cases only

formal, namely, concerning the underlying

Midrash or the

scriptural proof for the halakic teaching.

The

traditional

was agreed upon by all the teachers.

That is to say, there was no dispute about the transmitted
rules and decisions which all the teachers received alike.
Halakah, as such,

The

however,

teachers,

scriptural passages

and

often

did

disagree

as

to

the

their interpretations

whereon these

One

teacher would

received halakic decisions were based.

Halakah by interpreting a given passage

manner. Another teacher would deduce the

derive a certain
in a certain

same Halakah from another passage, or even from the

same passage but by means of another interpretation.
Thus, as long as the Halakah was taught only in Midrashform there existed many differences of opinion between
the teachers, not in regard to the halakic decisions or
rules in

themselves but in regard to their midrashic proof

and support.
anxious

to

unanimity

The

teachers of those days

maintain

harmony among

in their teachings therefore

the Halakah

who were very

themselves

and

decided to separate

from the Midrash and to teach

pendently of the scriptural proof or support.

it

inde

In other

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

14

words, they introduced the Mishnah-form

as an independent branch of learning.
all

the differences

of

By

established

in

this innovation

opinion and disputes about the

Thus uniformity

midrashic proof necessarily disappeared.

was restored

the Halakah

teaching the Halakah, and

among

harmony was

the teachers.

This second theory of Hoffmann is even less tenable

than the first. In the first place, it fixes the date for the

Mishnah even

introduction of the

Consequently,

in

this

respect

it

later
is

than the

refuted

first

by

arguments that were brought against the

have seen above that there were Halakot

first

form, even collections of such Halakot, at a

much

We

theory.

the

in

same

theory.

Mishnahearlier

Furthermore, the explanation of the cause for the

date.

innovation put forth in this theory presents a palpable

error in reasoning.

the

Halakah, as

It

presupposes that the decisions of

such, were

older than

their midrashic

connexion with the scriptures, and that at some earlier

time they had been transmitted independently of scriptural
For this reason the teachers could well be
proofs.

unanimous

in

accepting the Halakah and yet find cause for

dispute as to methods of proving certain halakic decisions

from the scripture by means of the Midrash. But this

means nothing else than that there were some Mishnahs.
independent Halakot before the disputes about the
scriptural proofs caused their separation from the Midrash.
that

is,

This

line of

reasoning contradicts

the cause for the first

itself.

It sets

out to find

introduction of the Mishnah-form,

but assumes that before this introduction some Halakot

had already been transmitted

in

Mishnah-form.

words, this so-called first introduction

introduction.

was

In other

really not a

first

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

If

they had taught only

in

15

Midrash-form, the alleged

which the Mishnah-form, according to Hoffmann,

was to remedy could never have arisen. It would have

evil results

been impossible
decision,

and

scriptural

Halakah

for

the teachers to agree upon a halakic

the same time

at

Since

proof.

disagree about

to

teacher

every

received

same Midrash-form, that

in the

is,

its

each

as an

in

connected with, a certain scriptural

terpretation of,
passage, every one who remembered the decision must
or

have remembered the form

in

which he received

it,

that

passage with which it was connected.

very improbable that a teacher remembering the

is,

the scriptural

It

is

having forgotten the scriptural basis, would

have supplied another scriptural proof therefor, and then
decision, but

disputed with his colleagues

passage on which

who remembered

Halakah was based.

this

pretation, the mere mention of that passage

it

did

which the Halakah was an inter

forget the passage for

must have brought

the right
If he

back to

his

by his

memory.

colleagues

It is evident

that there could be no universal acceptance of a

together with disputes regarding

its

Halakah

proofs, unless such a

Halakah had been taught apart from its proof. This,

however, was not done, as long as the Midrash-form was
in exclusive use, that

taught as a
18

commentary

as long as the

to

For, as

tyDO

nK>rf>

Halakah was merely

on the text of the Law. 18

This would hold true even

of the so-called

laws

is,

if

we

should believe in the genuineness

is, that there had been given oral

ITD^R, that

Moses on Sinai and transmitted independently of the written law.

Hoffmann himself states (pp. cit., p. 7), even all the traditional

were taught together with the scriptural laws and connected

with them in the Midrash-form. All through the period of the Soferim,
and according to Hoffmann till the time of the disciples of Hillel and
teachings

Shammai, such
Scriptures.

traditional laws

The mental

would somehow be connected with the

attitude of the teachers

was not

in the direction

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

l6
as

Quite
Z. Frankel

(Hodegetica in

the

is

unsatisfactory

theory advanced by

Mischnam^ pp.

6, 7,

and

10).

According to this theory, the innovation of teaching de

tached Halakah in the Mishnah-form was made by the
19
This was done to overcome three
group of Soferim.
difficulties which Frankel tells us existed in those days.
In the first place, the halakic decisions based upon the

last

individual passages had increased to such an extent that

the task of studying and teaching them in the Midrash-

form became very

In

difficult.

the second place,

the

absence of inner logical connexion between the individual

of the

dicta

Halakah made

study a work of mere

its

of separating such traditional laws from the scriptural passages with

which

they had for centuries been connected. This would have remained their
attitude even if they had realized that such a connexion was merely artificial

No differences of opinion were therefore possible as to

such traditional laws were to be connected with the Scripture.

(see below, note 27).

how

It

should be noted that Hoffmann seems to have subsequently abandoned

In his introduction to his translation of the Mishnah,

both his theories.

(p. x,

note 3), he states that according to the Palestinian

so-called

Number-Mishuahs were already compiled and redacted

Seder Nezikin

Talmud the

by the men of the Great Synagogue. He refers to the passage in Shekalim,

V, 48 c, which, like Weiss and Oppenheim, he misinterprets. See below,
note 26.
19

N. Krochmal

(op. cit., pp. 174-5) also

assumes that even the

the Soferim began to teach independent Halakot (so also Pineles,

shel Torah, pp. 8-9).

last

of

Darkah

Like Frankel, Krochmal also gives as the reason the

new decisions which could no longer

increased number of the Halakot and

be connected with the Scripture

in

however, a great difference of opinion

the form of the Midrash.

There

between Krochmal and Frankel as

is,

to

Krochmal extends the period of the Soferim until about 200 B. c.,
assuming that the Simon mentioned in Abot as one of the last survivors
dates.

of the Great Synagogue

is

Simon

II,

the son of Onias

II.

therefore designates him as the last of the Soferim and the

Mishnah teachers, the Tannaim

the last

Krochmal
first

of the

According to Frankel,
member of the Great Synagogue was Simon the Just I about 300 B. c.
p. 166).

This Simon, then, was the

was introduced

(loc. cit.,

last

of the Soferim in

(Hodegetica, pp. 68 and 30-31).

whose days the Mishnah

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

mechanical

memorizing

IJ

very tiresome and repulsive

procedure for the intelligent student. In the third place,

the Pentateuch gives the laws pertaining to one subject in

many

As

different places.

the Midrash follows the Penta-

teuchal order, there could be no systematic presentation of

all

the laws on

for instance,

any one

The laws on one

subject.

subject,

Sabbath, being derived from widely separated

passages in the Pentateuch, had to be taught piecemeal,

each decision
all

connexion with

in

For

scriptural basis.

its

these reasons, Frankel tells us, the last group of the

Soferim

decided

scriptural bases

to

from

Halakot

the

separate

and to teach them

in the

their

new Mishnah-

form systematically arranged according to subjects.

Like Hoffmann, Frankel assumes that the plan of
arranging the Halakot according to subject-matter was
coincident with the very introduction of the Mishnah-form,
so that the very earliest

been arranged topically.

correct.

The

later date.

This,

must have

collections

as

we have

seen,

is

in

arrangement of the Mishnah is of

was preceded by other forms of grouping

topical

It

peculiar to the earlier

self credits

Mishnah

Mishnah

collections.

Frankel him

R. Akiba with the systematic arrangement of

Halakah according

to topics

(op.

cit.,

p.

He

115).

also

qualifies by the following remarks his former statement

concerning

the

Soferim

Halakah according

and

their

to subjects

preceding chapter that the

arrangement of the
have stated in the

We

teaching

[of the

Halakah]

according to subjects began at the end of the period of

the Soferim.
Nevertheless, a long time undoubtedly
passed before

all

[the

Halakot] that belonged

to

one

subject were brought together under one heading.

Very
often while dealing with one subject they would
[not keep

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

l8
to

strictly

it

theme

halakic

drift

but]

another and pass from one

R. Akiba, however, began

to

to another

to arrange the old Halakot to put each in

its

and [under the topic] to which

20

it

belonged.

the order in the Mishnah before R.

proper place
If,

however,

Akiba was not

according to subjects, as Frankel here admits,

and

strictly
if

some

Halakot bearing on one subject would often be treated

among Halakot dealing with another subject, what ad
vantage was there then in separating the Halakot from the
Midrash and teaching them in the Mishnah-form ? The
shortcomings of the Mid rash- form, according to Frankel,
consisted in the fact that the Halakot of one subject could

not be taught connectedly but were interrupted by Halakot

Frankel
in the

another subject.

to

belonging

own

However, according to
defect was inherent

statement, the same

Mishnah-form up to the time of Akiba.

Taking up another statement of Frankel,

difficult

to

realize

together with

done

in the

work

all

the

why

it

seems

study of the written laws

the Halakot

derived from them, as

is

Midrash-form, should be such dry mechanical

memory, and so repulsive to the intelligent

One would be inclined to think that the study

of the

student.

of the Halakot in the abstract Mishnah-form, especially

when not arranged systematically, would indeed be a far

more mechanical work and far more tiresome for the
Again, according to Frankel, it was the alleged
lack of inner logical connexion between the single Halakot
student.

20

s
*po ^ nnn

n^yn

ISDN}
nr

pxn

s"y

DIE D

11

!*!

TID^H mipn pnsn

D^

opoyn D oya

rvoi?nn

1
"

1"13V

nmm

p2D

/IPIK

Vlfcl

i?n

uam

133 rum

QnaiDn
/

nnn ins py

S?K

5>3K

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

IQ

which made the Midrash-form inadequate for teaching

purposes. However, this absence of inner logical connexion
merely alleged by Frankel, but not proved. If we should
even grant that in the Midrash-form the Halakot were not

is

always logically connected and coherently presented, the

earlier
earlier

Mishnah certainly did not remedy this evil. The

Mishnah collections were characterized by the most

arbitrary
different

were

modes of arrangement.

themes and altogether unrelated in subject-matter

grouped together under artificial formulas.

often

Examples of these
preserved even
for

Halakot bearing upon

instance,

in

in

modes of arrangement have been

the present form of our Mishnah as

earlier

the so-called

Number-Mishnahs or the

The Midrash-form

En-ben-Mishnahs.

certainly established

a better connexion between the individual Halakot than

The mere

did these earlier arrangements of the Mishnah.

fact

that

many Halakot belong

to

one

and the same

chapter or are grouped around one and the

same passage

of the Scriptures, establishes a better connexion between

them than

the accident that they can

all

be presented

under one formula.

Aside from

all

these arguments, the fundamental position

of Frankel can hardly be maintained.

In the time of the

last group of the Soferim, the halakic material could not

have grown to such an extent as to make it impossible
to use the Midrash-form and necessitate the innovation of

a new form of teaching.

The mere volume

of the halakic

by no means have brought about this change

This is evident from the fact that our halakic

material could

of form.

Midrashim,

Sitra, Sifre,

and Mekilta, present

form a mass of halakic material

than was extant

in the

far

in

Midrash-

greater in

days of the Soferim.

volume

Thus we

see

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

20
that

the reasons which Frankel gives for the introduction

all

of the Mishnah-form are insufficient and could not have

been the cause of the innovation.

In conclusion,

Frankel

the teachers

admission that

continued to use the Midrash-form even after the intro

21

duction of the Mishnah-form

own

the strongest refutation

is

Midrash-form had so many

theory.
disadvantages, if it was both tiresome for the student and

of his

If the

inadequate for presenting the Halakot systematically, why

was it not altogether abandoned ? How did the new form
obviate the evils of the old form
in

if

the latter continued

use?

The theory propounded by Weiss in his Mabo

pp. iv and v, and in his Dor^

p. 66, is

I,

improvement upon the ideas of Frankel.

la-Mekilta,

somewhat of an
Like Frankel, he

Mishnah-form was introduced by the later

Soferim, and that the reason for this change was the large
increase of halakic material.
He avoids two of the

believes that the

mistakes that Frankel made.

In the

first

place,

he does

not confuse the innovation of teaching detached Halakot

in

the form

latter

of Mishnah with the

according to subjects.

Midrash-form continued

the

arrangement of the
Nor does he assume that
use, after

in

form was introduced.

the

Mishnah-

to Weiss, the Midrash-

According
form was abandoned because it proved inadequate. It
was hard for the student to remember the great mass
Halakot

of
in

that

existed

The

the Midrash-form.

at

that

teachers,

time,

when taught

therefore,

felt

the

need of inventing another form which would help the

21

Op.

cii.,

p. 7,

nn

he says
DJ

pjyn DDSJ&

ra^n bix

n:6

"pi

DPO

mU^

WKin TH

PJN

SHI

ntv *6 ra^n.

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

memory

retain the increased

number

21

of halakic teachings.

This help
memory they found in separating the
Halakot from their scriptural bases and in expressing them
for the

in

concise

short,

phraseology, and

in

The

them

arranging
saying of

Simon

the Just,

things, &c.

(Abot

I, 2),

in

according

a number-formula.

to

The world rests upon three

and the three Halakot mentioned

which according

to

Weiss

are

soferic

Eduyot VIII,

4,

Halakot, merely

reported by Jose ben Joezer, are cited by Weiss in support

of his theory that the Soferim taught detached

expressed

concise

in

terms and arranged

Halakot

according to

number formulas. Weiss (Mabo la-Mekilta, p. v, note 7)

admits, however, that the innovation was unsuccessful.
The teachers, he tells us, soon found that the Mishnahform, although
easily

superior to

memorized, had

a result, they had to

the

many

Midrash, in being more

other disadvantages.

return to the

older

As

form of the

22
they had abandoned it for a time.
This admission of Weiss that the advantages expected

Midrash

22

after

In this assumption, that the Midrash-form

had

for a

long time been

abandoned and supplanted by the Mishnah, and that later on objections

to the Mishnah-form caused a return to the Midrash, Weiss is followed
by Oppenheim ( Ha-Zuggot we-ha-Eshkolot
116), and by Bassfreund (see above, note 15).

in

Hashahar, VII, pp. 114 and

It is

strange that while these

scholars cannot account satisfactorily for one change that really took place,
namely, from the exclusive use of the Midrash to the admission of the

Mishnah-form, they assume another change which never took place, namely,
a return from a supposed temporary exclusive use of the
old Midrash.

We

exclusive use, for

Mishnah

to the

have already seen that the Mishnah-form was never

the Midrash continued to be used side by side with

in
it.

Consequently there could have been no return from Mishnah to Midrash.

But we shall see that the very reason which Weiss, Oppenheim, and
Bassfreund give for the return to the Midrash, namely, the opposition
of the Sadducees,

was

rather the cause for the further departure from the

Midrash-form and the extension of the use of the Mishnah-form (see below,
notes 72 and 73).

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

22

from the new form were not

argument

against his theory.

is

Further,

we have

that the necessity for aiding the

been the reason

words of the

Mishnah-form.

The

scriptural text with which the Halakot were

connected in the Midrash-form offered

the memory.

We

sufficient

have also seen above that

of the Soferim the halakic material

necessitate

seen above

could not have

memory

for introducing the

a strong

in itself

realized,

in

help to

the days

was not so large as to

The Soferim

new forms and arrangements.

never gave their teachings

in

any other form but in the

Midrash, namely, as interpretations and additions to the

written laws.

except

They

in the

never arranged them in any other

way

order of the scriptural passages to which

The two passages, cited by Weiss, do

they belonged.
not refute this statement. The saying of Simon the Just
in Abot is not a halakic teaching but a maxim of the
same character

We

as the other

wisdom

literature of that time.

can draw no conclusions from

halakic teachings of that day.

As

it

as to the form of

for the three

Halakot

mentioned in Eduyot, these will later be shown to have

been the decisions of Jose ben Joezer himself.
Conse
quently they do not prove anything concerning the form
of halakic teaching used by the Soferim.

Oppenheim

23

a theory that

offers

is

in

reality

a combination of the views examined above.

but

However,

he makes a very correct observation concerning the date

of the innovation. According to Oppenheim, the Mishnahform was

first

introduced during or immediately after the

As

Maccabean

uprising.

incident to

the Maccabean revolution, the study of the

?3

Toldot Ha-Mishnah

Ha-Zuggot we-ha-Eshkolot

in
in

a result

Beth Talmud,

of the

II, p.

145,

persecutions

and also

Hasha/iar, VII, pp. 114-15.

in his

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

23

law was neglected and the knowledge of it decreased.

The teachers, therefore, decided to separate the Halakot

from their scriptural bases and to teach them indepen

dently, in order to save them from oblivion ( Toledot ha-

Mishnah

Beth Talmud,

in

They chose

II, p. 145).

this

form either because they thought that in this form it

would be easier for the student to remember the Halakot,
because

or

remembered the

The

first

the

they,

teachers

scriptural bases for

of these two reasons

no

themselves,

is

longer

Halakot.

many

identical with the

one

by Weiss, which has been found

The second one is similar to the one given
Hoffmann s second theory, and, as we have seen, is

given by Frankel and

insufficient.

in

not plausible.

For,

they had not previously studied

if

Mishnah but received the Halakot only together with

their

scriptural

teachers could

it

is

hardly

possible

forget the latter and yet

them the

felt

own nor Frankel s nor Weiss s theory was

the problem.

He

problem, and this

in the

which

that neither his

sufficient to solve

therefore offered another solution of the

practically a denial of the fact that

is

a problem.

is

the

recalled

scriptural passages in connexion with

they were received.

It seems that Oppenheim himself

there

that

remember the

The remembered Halakot would have

former.
to

bases,

After stating that the Soferim taught

Midrash-form and those who followed them intro

duced the new form of abstract Halakot, that

is

Mishnah,

he contradicts himself by adding the following remark: 24

But in my opinion there is no doubt that the Soferim who
taught [the Halakah] as a commentary on the Scriptures
24

DT

n:

mtapEn swan

irTOn

&6 ITD^nn

ITHN -K?K
<Ha-Zuggot

onsion

"a

pso ?i p

we-ha-Eshkolot

I.e., p.

114.

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

24
[i.e.

Midrash] also taught independent Halakot.

proceeds to prove that the Soferim

According to
We need not

no problem at all.
any change in the form of teaching Halakah or

statement there

account for

then

had independent or

abstract Halakot in the form of Mishnah. 25

this

He

is

explain the reasons for the innovation of the Mishnah, for

The two

there was no change and no innovation.

forms,

Midrash and Mishnah, were evidently used together from

the earliest times, the Midrash possibly to a larger extent
than the Mishnah.

This would indeed be the best solution

of the problem and would remove

obstacle in the

by

way

of

all historic reports.

its

adoption

It

is

all difficulties.
is

is

it is

contradicted

against the tradition that in

earlier times all the teachings of the

in the

that

The only

Halakah were given

This tradition, we have seen,

Midrash-form only.

indicated in the discussion of Jose and Hezekiah

tioned

in the

Palestinian

by Sherira Gaon.

expressly mentioned
the

harmony with
25

This

is

generally accepted

also the stand taken

maintains (Doroth ha-Rishonim,

men

Talmud (Moed katan) and

I,

It is also

opinion

is

out of

that

the

by Halevi who goes even further and

ff.) that in the main

chap, xiv, pp. 204

our Mishnah had already been composed and arranged by the Soferim, but
he does not prove his statements. At the most, his arguments could only
prove that there had been many Halakot and decisions in the days of the
Soferim, and that the earliest Tannaim in our Mishnah in their discussions
seek to define and explain these older Halakot and decisions. But it does
not follow that these Halakot and decisions were already in the days of the

Soferim composed

in

the Mishnah-form.

These Halakot and decisions were

originally given in the Midrash-form, as definitions or interpretations of

The later teachers, that is, the earlier Tannaim, discussed

and commented upon these decisions and Halakot of their predecessors
which they had before them in Midrash-form. Later on, when these decisions
written laws.

and Halakot became separated from the Midrash, they were arranged

in

independent Halakot, together with all the

comments and explanations given to them by the Tannaim, and in this form
ihey are also found contained in our Mishnah.

the

Mishnah-collections

as

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

25

name implies, imparted all their teachings

connexion with the written book of the Law. It

Soferim, as the

only
is,

in

further,

against

an

absolutely reliable report

Babylonian Talmud which,

as

we

shall see, tells

in

the

us

not

only that the older form of teaching the Halakah was the

Midrash, but also gives us the period of time during which

it

was

in exclusive use.

Thus we

see that

all

these theories examined above have

not succeeded in finding a real solution for our problem.

None

of the theories have given the exact time or the real

cause for the introduction of the Mishnah-form.

Probably the strangest feature of the problem is the

silence of the talmudic literature about this important
This silence is all the more remarkable when
innovation.

we come

to realize that this

was not merely a change

in

form, but an innovation that had great influence upon the

development of the Halakah and had great bearing upon

the validity of

its

authority.

The theory proposed

to

us

to

problem.

essay offers what appears

be a satisfactory solution for this many-sided

In the first place it determines the exact time

when the innovation

introduced.

in this

of teaching independent

In the second place

that compelled the teachers to

it

Halakot was

describes the conditions

make

so radical a change.

And
in

finally it explains why no explicit report is preserved

talmudic sources regarding this great development in

the teachings of the Halakah.

propound.

This theory

shall

now

II

WE have seen
a class of people

above that the name

Soferim designates
occupied themselves with the Book

who

and taught from that

Book

alone.

This name has been

applied to the earliest teachers of the Halakah, because

they imparted

Book of

all

commentary on
Midrash.

connexion with the

their teachings in

the Law, either as an exposition of

This,

it,

that

we have

is

to

seen,

is

say

in

asserted

or as a

it

the form

by

of the

tradition

and

agreed upon by almost all the modern scholars. There is

absolutely no reason for assuming that any of the teachers
belonging to the group of the Soferim, whether the earlier
or later, departed from this peculiar

method of

teaching.

For the name Soferim was given to the teachers because

of this method of teaching and continued in use only
as long as they adhered exclusively to this method.

As

soon as the teachers ceased to occupy themselves exclu

sively with the Book of the Law and its exposition and

began to teach abstract Halakot also, the name applied

to them was no longer Soferim but Shone Halakot or
*

Tannaim

(see especially J. Briill,

furt a. M., 1876, II, p. 2).

Mebo ha-Mishnah^ Frank

The haggadic saying

of Rabbi

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

Abahu 26

Yerushalmi Shekalim V,

(in

and Oppenheim

i,

27

48

c)

which Weiss

a proof of their contention that the

cite as

Soferim taught abstract Halakot in the Mishnah-form, does

not refer to the Soferim at

It

all.

does not say anything

about their methods or form of teaching.

Kenites,

who

in

Chronicles

2.

It refers to

the

55 are identified with the

families of Soferim, the inhabitants of Yabez, the Tir atim,

Shim

the

and Sukatim.

atim,

In

names the

these

all

seeks to find attributes for the Kenites, indi

Haggadah
some of

here gives an haggadic interpretation of the

applied to the Kenites in the same fanciful
other names, Tir atim,

Shim

atim, and Sukatim are inter

Numbers 78 (Friedmann 20

preted in Sifre,

Oppenheim advances

still

a).

another argument to prove

that the Soferim taught abstract Halakot.

the traditional laws designated

been transmitted

have

that

Oppenheim)
ditional

laws

in

convincing.

these

not

it

follows

independent
This is not at

taught

were

there

down from Moses

many

The passage
w<?

rbm

in p.

such

D^TTI

Weiss (Dor,

I,

tnm

p.

minn ns

these

traditional

-iDib

iii^n no

3TD

all

and that
it

does

teachings

IfON

"1

py wv

n^En icnn* vb

onaio
n
^IIIDD nrnao minn.

P3H T^N U^iTl

^oan nn,
mo^nn
BnT)

66) refers to this saying in the

ipy

(so

tra

unwritten

to the Soferim,

Shekalim reads as follows

DnaiD

i>K

that

follow

of

n&cb nJ?n must

Soferim,

Mishnah-form.
that

^D

Since

formed part of their religious teachings,

necessarily

26

by

as

the

Soferim

the

Granted

laws handed

R. Abahu
name Soferim
manner as the

their peculiar characteristics.

cating

DnaionBr (D^p^

words

and Oppenheim (Hashahar,\Il, p. 114) states: in^K /- HDK ^fen^ll

ionn* vb n jwa nniao niinn r\x i^v^ ^D^ D^IDID jnix pnip vn^.
Both of them erroneously take this haggadic saying as a characterization
1

"i3i

of the

methods

of the Soferim

and as a reason for their name.

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

28

were given in the Mishnah-form.

They could as well
have been given as additional laws in the Midrash-form,
passages with which they

together with the scriptural

had some

sort of relation,

from them. 27

made during the

The period of
the Just

still

came

the Soferim
B.C.

In

Simon

to an end with

Abot

i,

2 he

is

desig

men

of the

which means that he was the

last of

of the last survivors of the

Synagogue

the Soferim.

who

Mishnah was not

period of the Soferim.

about 300-270

nated as being
great

though not based on or derived

therefore absolutely certain that the

is

the form from Midrash to

in

change

It

During the time of

this

Simon the Just

I,

belonged to the Soferim, there could have been

We

no Mishnah.

have, therefore, to look for the origin

of the Mishnah-form in the times after Simon

I,

that

is,

270 B.C. We have thus gained at least this much.

have fixed the terminus a quo, the beginning of the
period during which the innovation of the Mishnah-form

after

We

could have been made.

ad

We

have now to

find the

terminus

quern, namely, the last possible date for the introduction.

In seeking to determine this latter date, the only proper

way would be

to find the oldest authentic

tioned in talmudic literature without

that
27

is,
If.

in

the Mishnah-form.

its

Halakah men

scriptural

In determining the date

for instance, the regulations about the colour of the

proof,

when

thongs and

the form of the knot of the phylacteries were traditional laws given to Moses

on Sinai, DID^C^ Tl, as

(Mena^ot 35

is

claimed by some of the Rabbis of the Talmud

a,b), these could

the passage in Deut.

6. 8.

have been nevertheless taught together with

could have stated that the com

The teachers

mandment and thou

shalt bind them

is explained by tradition to mean,
them only with black thongs, Dllin^ JTiyiVl; and second, that
the phylacteries must be square, rny^ HD also that the knot must be of
a certain shape and lastly, that the letter Shin, W, must be impressed on
first, to tie

the outside, &c., &c.

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

29

such a Halakah was given, we shall eo ipso have deter

mined the date when the change in the form had already
been made and the Mishnah-form was already in use.
This seems to be the simplest and only logical method
of procedure. Strange as it may seem, this method has
been

not

by any of the

followed

scholars

who have

attempted to solve our problem.

The
Halakot

The
3,

Jose b. Joezer,

is

28

name we have independent

who died about 165 B.C. 29

Simon the Just and Antigonos (Abot i,

merely wisdom maxims and not halakic

sayings of

and

are

3)

Connected with the name of Jose, however,

teachings.

we have

three halakic decisions mentioned without any

Mishnah-form (Mishnah Eduyot

The authenticity of these Halakot is not to be

VIII,

i.e.

proof,

scriptural
4).

doubted.

28

teacher in whose

first

are certainly decisions given

They

Frankel

in

statement, 1&O

DEK>

T^N* D

W&nn

by Jose ben

DH

Nrpnaai r02 D2 rW^n, that Hillel and Shammai were the first teachers in
whose name Halakot are mentioned in the Mishnah and Baraita (Hodegetica,
p. 38)

is.

to say the least, surprising.

We

find

Halakot from

all

the four

preceding Zuggot. Thus a Halakah is mentioned in the name of Shemaiah

and Abtalion concerning the quantity of drawn water (D QINZ^ D^ft) that
is sufficient to disqualify the Mikwah (Eduyot I, 3), not to mention the

Halakot

which
(p.

in

regard to the slaughtering of the passover sacrifice on sabbath

Hillel

is

said to

Pesahim 333 and

have received from them and taught in their name

Pesahim 66 a). Simon b. Shetah mentions a law

b.

name of the D^DPI in regard to the punishment of false witnesses

(Makkotsb). From Joshua b. Perahia we have a Halakah in regard to
wheat brought from Alexandria (Tosefta Makshirin III, 4), and in the name

in the

of Jose b. Joezer

we

have the three Halakot (M. Eduyot VIII,

4).

The date of Jose s death can only be approximated. He died when

Alcimus was still in power (see Genesis r. LXV, 22). Probably he was
among the sixty men whom the Syrian general Bacchides killed at the
29

instigation of

Alcimus

(i

Mac.

in the Jewish Encyclopaedia,

I,

7. 16).

332-3).

Alcimus died 160 B.C. (see Buchler

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

30
30

In the form in which they are preserved they

have already been taught by his colleagues or disciples.
Thus we find that in the last days of Jose b. Joezer or soon
Joezer.

30

Jose

b.

Joezer

authorship of these Halakot was

Dr. Jacob Levy in Ozar Nehmad, III, p. 29.

however, Levy arrives

b.

given by Jose

at the conclusion that these

Joezer

of Zeredah.

Graetz (Monatsschrift, 1869, PP- 3O-3 1 )

und

der Cultus,

teacher whose
is

p.

63)

first

questioned by

In the course of his discussion,

Halakot were really

Following Levy s first suggestion,

and after nim Buchler (Die Priester

assume that these three Halakot belong

name was

likewise Jose

otherwise not known.

There

is,

b.

to

some

later

Joezer, although such a teacher

however, no necessity for seeking any

b. Joezer of Zeredah who is expressly

other author than the well-known Jose

mentioned
to

Jose

The

our sources.

in

fancied difficulties of ascribing the decisions

Joezer of Zeredah disappear on close examination. The main

is said to be the difference in time between the date of Jose and

b.

difficulty

the date of the Eduyot-collection.

who

How could Jose

b.

Joezer of Zeredah,

Jabneh about
on that memorable day when Gamaliel II was deposed from the
presidency, and when according to a talmudic report (Berakot 27 b) the
100

died before 160

B. c.,

have

testified before the teachers in

c. E.

Eduyot-collection was arranged ? Were this a real difficulty, it could easily

be removed by assuming with Levy (op. cit., p. 36) that the word DIK^D
in the name of was left out in our Mishnah, and that the text ought to

read

mnX

B"N

WP p

DV

""I"!

DV^

TjJil

teacher testified in the

name of Jose b. Joezer of Zeredah

However, no real difficulty exists.
The theory that all of the Halakot contained in our Eduyot-collection are
testimonies that were deposed before the teachers at the assembly at Jabneh,
cannot be maintained. Our Eduyot-collection contains other Halakot than
.

those testified to before the assembly at Jabneh.

that

were not even discussed

at that

It

To

assembly.

contains also Halakot

the latter class belong

the three Halakot of Jose b. Joezer (see H. Klueger, Ueber Genesis

Composition der

Halakoth-Sammlung Eduyoth, Breslau,

1895).

It

und

is

not

necessary to assume, as Klueger (/. c., p. 84) does, that these decisions had
been found in written form in the archives. These Halakot were simply

known to the
were known
heart,

and

teachers just as the other sayings and teachings of the Zuggot

They had been transmitted orally and studied by

to them.

at the

time

when

the Eduyot-collection

these three Halakot were incorporated in

his

commentary on Mishnah Eduyot, ad

The

it.

was composed or

Compare

also

redacted,

Hoffmann

in

loc.

other difficulties in these three Halakot will be considered later

in the course of this essay,

themselves.

when we come

to the discussion of the

Halakot

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

death some Halakot were already taught without

after his

scriptural proof, that

any

31

we

cordingly

is,

Ac

the Mishnah-form.

in

have found the terminus

ad quern

for the

innovation of the Mishnah-form. (,,

We

(\&OUtJt) lb
B,C.
pass to a consideration of the particular point

now

of time in this period

We

have good reasons

not

of Jose are
likelihood the

when the new form was

reliable

first

report

indications

in

introduced.

for believing that these

only the

first

mentioned,

decisions

but

ever taught in Mishnah-form.

the

in

well

as

Talmud,

gaonic traditions, points

in

all

Indeed,

as

certain

to the last days

when

the time

the change in the form of

This
talmudic report is given in
teaching was made.
Temurah 15 b by Samuel, but it is undoubtedly an older

of Jose as

which

tradition

follows

31
:

np

Samuel merely reported.

iy n^o rn^E bvntA jr6 ny

vn xb I^NI fsao irm n^ED min

Wll

mm p^

nB>E3

pi>

vn -uyv

All the teachers

from the days of Moses

who

reads

It

<I

as

DV

arose in Israel

until the death, or the last days,

of Jose b. Joezer studied the

Torah as Moses

did, but

afterwards they did not study the Torah as Moses did

The

discussion that follows in the

Talmud endeavours to
Here we learn that
mean that the teachers

explain the meaning of this report.

the report was not understood to
until the

time of Jose

laws as Moses had.

they were

all

death were

Nor was

in possession of as

The

report, so

no doubtful or

the discussion ends,

can only be understood to say that they taught

31

W
is

The

rilE 1

correction suggested

iy

till

very plausible.

by Graetz

the days of Jose

many

understood to say that

it

of one opinion and had

Halakot.

disputed

in

the

(Monatsschrift, 1869, p. 23) to read

instead of

flDP iy

till

Jose died

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

32

same manner

We
means

which Moses taught, vA n^oa nn

in

To

this

method was and what

it

manner of Moses, but it

method can only be the Mid rash-form.

evident that this

is

what

are not told

to study or teach in the

the Halakot as interpretation of the written

all

give

word means

to study or teach like

as the Rabbis did, that

all

Moses

all

Assuming,

the interpretations given in the

Midrash are correct explanations and

written Law,

did.

definitions

of the

the teachings given in the Midrash-form

were really contained in the words of Moses. And Moses

must have taught them in the same manner in which they

For Moses must have read to

are taught in the Midrash.

the

people

the

written

and

of each

meaning
word of the Torah.

manner

of

Moses

laws

and

That the phrase

is

the

interpreted

full

explained each passage or each

to study in the

used to indicate the Midrash-form,

can also be seen from another passage in the Babylonian

Talmud. In Yebamot 72 b we read that Eleazar b. Pedat
refuted an opinion of R.

Johanan by quoting a

passage and giving an interpretation

to

it.

scriptural

R. Johanan,

R. Eleazar, in his argument, was making

an
use of
original interpretation, characterizes his method
mnan ISD rty3 tsnm 3BW rns p^ TiW
in these words

thinking that

see that the son of Pedat

Moses

Simon

b.

studies in the

manner of

Lakish, however, informs R. Johanan

that this argument was not original with R. Eleazar, but

Torat Kohanim, as it
our Sifra (Tazria* I, Weiss 58 b). We

was taken from a Midrash-Baraita

is

indeed found in

see, thus, that to

done
of

in

our Sifra,

Moses

study or teach
is

in

in the

Midrash-form, as

characterized as being

(n^D3 enni 3BT).

The

report in

in the

is

manner

Temurah

15 b,

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

33

accordingly, tells us that until the death or the last days of

all

Jose

called

the teachers taught in the Midrash-form, which

manner

in the

This seems

also to

Geonim, though

of

Moses

have been the tradition among the

own they

for reasons of their

did not care

We

to express themselves distinctly about this question.

82

This report

in the

is

32

Talmud might perhaps be confirmed by the report

about the religious persecution

time of Antiochus Epiphanes.

in the

Among

the

many prohibitions against Jewish religious practices devised by the

Syrian ruler for the purpose of estranging the Jews from their religion, which

are mentioned by the authors of the Books of Maccabees

(i

Mace. ch.

i,

and

we

do not hear of any special prohibition against teaching

the Law, as was the case in the Hadrianic persecutions (b. Abodah zarah
2 Mace. ch. 6),

I7b-i8a, compare Graetz, Geschichte, IV, 4, pp. 154 ff.). On the contrary,
learn from the saying of Jose b. Joezer, who lived at that time, that no
such prohibition was enacted. For Jose said, Let thy house be a meeting-

we

place for the wise

with thirst (Abot

amidst the dust of their

sit

I,

4).

feet,

and drink their words

Evidently the wise teachers could meet unmolested

and could impart their religious teachings. Yet there

no doubt that the aim and the tendency of the Syrian government were
to suppress the religious teachings and to make the Jews forget their Law.
We hear that the Books of the Law were rent in pieces and burned with
in private places,
is

fire,

and that the king s command was that those people with whom the
of the Law would be found should be put to death (i Mace. i. 56-7

Book

Josephus, Antiquities, XII, 3,

that to burn the books of the

them was

is,

Evidently the persecutors believed

Law and to punish any one who possessed

prevent the study of the Law. This was a very
Since all teachings were given in the Midrash-form,

sufficient to

correct surmise.
that

256).

as an exposition and explanation of the

that to take

away

the

religious instruction.

Books of the
It

was

to

meet

Book

Law meant

of the

Law,

it

followed

to effectually prevent

this peculiar situation that

any

Jose uttered

Inasmuch as many of the Books of the Law were burnt,

was extremely dangerous to use those that had been secretly saved,
Jose advised the people to make every home a place where the wise teachers
might meet, and where one might listen to their words of instruction even
his

wise saying.

and as

it

without books.

These peculiar conditions may

in

some degree have helped

to

accustom

the teachers to impart religious instruction altogether apart from the

of the Law, namely in Mishnah-form.

L.

Book

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

34

have seen above that Sherira,

describing the

in

period

during which the Midrash-form was in exclusive use,

employs the term :^ BHpiDl Nnp^D, but does not define
s

how long

However, we

second Temple

earlier period of the

this

shall arrive at a

more exact

vague term by comparing its usage

Zemah Gaon. In this responsum

this

of R.

statement occurs
D3n

Dty

12

rvn

irn

DDD

interpretation of
in a
33

responsum

the following

Bnp3 ptnn blW vnp IWE

All the traditional law (rw

tfh

lasted.

is

bi

here

broader sense) which they used to teach in

the Midrash-form, ptnn vw, in the time of the Temple,

used

in

its

was anonymous, and no individual teacher is named or

The time which Zemah Gaon has
connected therewith
.

mind and which he designates

enp3

cannot include

the whole period of the second Temple.

Many names

in

as

of individual teachers living in the time of the second

are preserved to us together with their teachings,

Temple

and these names were no doubt already mentioned in the

collections of Halakot that existed in Temple times.

Zemah Gaon can only

R.

refer to the

time before Jose

b.

Joezer, when, indeed, no individual names were mentioned

in connexion with the halakic teachings, the latter being
33

This responsum

and more
discuss
that

it

is

quoted by Epstein in his Eldad ha-Dam, pp. 7-8,

Beth Hamidrash^ II, pp. 112-13.
shall

We

fully in Jellinek s

in detail later

Eldad

on

Zemah s statement
when they taught the

in the course of this essay.

Talmud followed the custom of

old

Halakah without mentioning the names of individual teachers, finds corroboration in the manner in which the halakic teachings as quoted by Eldad

were

introduced.

According to Eldad

introduced with the phrase

phrase, like the phrases

rHHJn

mUJH

IJ

Q"^

n^D3, would

IB

all

the halakic

nfc*ID

teachings

Sfl?irp

nt?3 KHHI 3BT

and

"1CK.

were
This

miD pID^

well describe the older Midrash-form, in which

teachings were given in the

very words of Moses.

name of Moses,

i.e.

all

as interpretations of the

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

35

given as interpretations of the Scripture (penn 1W), that

It is most probable that Sherira
is, in the Midrash-form.

by the term tnpon Nnp JHD refers to the same period

which Zemah Gaon designates as trrpM, that is, to the
time before Jose

conclude that the

Mishnah-form, was

can therefore reasonably

new form of teaching the Halakah, i.e.

first made use of in the closing days

of Jose b. Joezer. 34

We

We

b. Joezer.

|. flftpU^D

B-C

|>5"~

have, now, to ascertain the reason for the intro

new form

duction of a

of the older form.

of teaching the Halakah alongside

fixed the time,

Having

we must now

inquire into the conditions of that time, to see

them the reason

find in

tion

of the

under

consideration

changes

had

taken

We

community.

for the innovation.

the

reveals

place

notice

An

examina

obtained during the period

that

conditions

we cannot

if

the

fact

the

in

that

life

presence

of

of

many
the

great

Judean

new

various

The people

s
outlook upon life and their
had
Even
considerably changed.
regard
among the teachers and leaders we find new and diver

tendencies.

law

the

for

gent attitudes towards the

Law

of the fathers on the one

hand and towards the new ideas and tendencies on the

other hand.

All these changes were brought about by

the one radical change in the political condition of the

people, resulting from the passing of Judea from Persian
34

It

of Jose
in

is

perhaps for

were

this

very reason that the teachers until the time

This is correctly interpreted by Samuel

TUTOR S

called

the Talmud (Temurah 15 b and Sotah 47 b) to

that each

man spoke

only the opinion of the

spoke for each man,

as individuals.

Jose

b.

Joezer,

The
71

in the

mean 12 b^H^ K^K,

whole group and

that the

viz.

group

sense that the teachers acted as a body, not

death of

report that the Eshkolot ceased with the

^OfftKfl

"fel

"W

<I

DV HEPD, means

that this concerted action of the teachers ceased with Jose,

and

they began to mention Halakot in the name of individual teachers.

therefore
after

him

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

36

Greek

to

This great political change caused the

rule.

interruption of the activity of the Soferim as an authori

body of

tative

teachers.

This interruption of the activity

of the Soferim which was coincident with the death of

Simon, the

last

member

led to a departure

of that body, in the course of time

from the methods of the Soferim and

necessitated the introduction of a

new method

Halakot, namely, the Mishnah-form.

the

prove

this,

prevailed

we must

first

review

the time of the

in

the

of teaching

In

order to

conditions

that

Soferim and examine the

methods of the Midrash used by them.

As
the

said

above,

the Soferim

Book of the Law,

taught the people only

rninn 120, with such interpretations

and explanations as they could give to it. Their exegetical rules and Midrash-methods, simple as they were,
were nevertheless sufficient for their purpose, which was to
all

give

halakic teachings

the

written Law.

in

connexion

with

the

There was no reason whatever to make

any change in the form of teaching, and there was

absolutely no need to teach anything else besides the Book
of the Law and its Midrash. The stream of Jewish life,
during the period of the Soferim, moved on smoothly and
quietly, without

any great changes.

Under

the Persian

rule the Jewish people were merely a religious

community,
head of which stood the high-priest, 35 who was the
The conditions which pre
highest religious authority.
at the

vailed

in

community during the last days of the

were almost the same as in the earlier days,

this

Persian rule

when the community was

35

first

organized by the exiles

This was the case, at any rate, in the second half of the Persian

period.

pp. 198

See Wellhausen, Israelitische und Judische

and Schiirer, Geschichte, II, 4, pp. 267 ff.

ff.,

Geschichte,

3rd edition,

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

who

37

The Book of

returned from Babylon.

Law

the

ac

cepted from Ezra by these early founders and organizers

with the few simple interpretations given to

it

Soferim, was therefore sufficient for almost

the needs

all

by the

community throughout the entire Persian period.

course, some slight changes in the conditions of life

of the

Of

must have developed

These changes

in the course of time.

community probably brought new

The same changes probably required

in the inner life of the

religious customs.

certain modifications in the interpretation of

written laws or even the introduction of

new laws
same

the

in

all

easily

read

into

of interpretation, or even

Book by means

the

of

some

Thus they found

in the text itself.

Law

could

the Soferim

Law by means

written

new laws and new

All these necessary modifications and even the

practices.

few

some of the

embody

slight indications

the

in

the

Book of

the

the teachings they required.

The Soferim were

able to do this because they were

whose business

also the actual scribes

copies of the

Book

of the Law.

If

was

it

to prepare

they desired to teach

a certain law, custom, or practice, because they considered

it

it

could not

Book

of the

Law, they

by some

slight

change

as part of the religious teachings, although

be found

or interpreted into, the

in,

would cause
the text. 36
36

it

For

As we have

textual form in

to be indicated
instance,

by

in

adding or omitting a letter,

received the Torah from the Soferim and only in the

which they

cast

it

(not considering

some

slight

changes and

may have been made in the period after the Soferim, see below,
is impossible now to ascertain the full extent of the changes and

additions that

note 43),

it

made by the Soferim in the original text of the Law. However,

no doubt that the Soferim did change and correct the text of the Torah

corrections

there

is

which they

originally had.

Rabbis of the Talmud.

tradition to this effect

The Rabbis

was current among

often refer to such changes as

the

correc-

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

38
or

peculiar spelling of a

by the

tions of the Soferim

or

DHD1D

word they could bring about

DnSlID ppTl (Genesis

rUpfi (Leviticus

r.

XI,

5).

r.

LIX,

and Exodus

r.

XIII,

i)

They enumerated many passages

in

the Scriptures which in their present form represent the corrected readings
introduced by the Soferim (Sifre Numbers,
84, Friedmann, p. 22 b, and
Mekilta, Beshallahj

Exod.

15 (on

Shimh, VI, Weiss, pp. 46 b-47

expressly stated that

is

it

15. 7)

In

a).
all

Tanhuma, Beshallah
were

these corrections

made by the Soferim, the Men of the Great Synagogue, i^N DnDID ppTl
nbnan HDJD also, i^p: -ph r6ran now *vn$ ita n^pios irat? $*?**
D HDID. Even if it should be granted that these statements in the Tanhuma
;

Meor Enayim, Imre Bina/i,

XIX), it cannot be disputed that the interpretation of the term ppTl
DHSJID as referring to the corrections made by the Soferim, who were
are of later origin (see R. Azariah de Rossi,
ch.

identified

by the
as

with the

Men

DnDID

of the Great Synagogue,

same

fact that the

OlpT!, are designated in

corrections

ed. Frensdorf, p. 113), as

who was

which

is

correct.

This

is

confirmed

Midrashim are designated

theMassorah, Oklah We-Oklah (No. 168,

corrections,

in the

made by Ezra (K1TV

JpTl

pt>D

"

),

about the D HDID ^IpTl

conflicts with the later conception of the Rabbis, namely, that the entire
Torah is from God, and that the one who maintains that there are some
the

first

of the Soferim.

verses in the Torah which

of

God (Sanhedrin 99 a),

tradition, as

were not spoken by God,

R. Azariah de Rossi

views.

"O^pTl

was

is

a despiser of the

word

argue against the correctness of this

assumes. On the contrary, this conflict

this does not

(/. c.}

speaks in favour of our tradition.

DHD1D

If this tradition

For

it

proves that the tradition about the

too well-known a fact to be suppressed by later dogmatic

was

All that the later teachers could do

not to deny the fact that

changes were made in the text but merely to avoid too frequent mention of it.
When forced to mention the fact they pointed to a few harmless changes

and omitted

(as in Sifre

as the authors

and Mekilta) the

Mekilta, p. 46 b).

It

was probably on account

the reference to the Soferim, the

from the passage

(/. c.)

direct reference to the Soferim

of these corrections (compare Weiss, Middot Sofcrim, to

in

Tanhuma,

reports to have seen.

in

Men

was omitted

those old copies which R. Azariah de Rossi

The statement

ascribing the corrections to the Soferim, the

is

of such considerations that

of the Great Synagogue,

in the

Men

Tanhuma expressly

of the Great S3 nagogue,

accordingly not of later origin, as R. Azariah assumes.

was due to a later hand.

The omission

of this reference from certain copies

Although the corrected passages pointed out by the Rabbis do not deal
with the Law, we may safely assume (notwithstanding Weiss, /. c.} that the
Soferim corrected even the legal portions of the Pentateuch. A correction
of the Ketib

N?

into the

Kere

IP (Levit.

n.

21) certainly affected the

Law.

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

the

desired

result.

37

because they did not

not

did

They

do

so,

the text were of such

nature that they did not affect

it

to

corrections which they

it.

passage, but merely gave to

hesitate

change the law as they

in

any way
The changes and
allowed themselves to make in
understood

39

the

meaning of the

an additional meaning, thus

suggesting the law or custom which they desired to teach.

In this manner they succeeded in grafting upon the written

Law

all

these newly developed laws and customs which

Even

they considered genuinely Jewish.

had desired to introduce a new

teach a

if

the Soferim

religious practice or to

new law which could not be represented

interpretation of the

Law

as an

nor indicated in the text, they

would not have been compelled to change their usual form

of teaching.

They

could

still

have taught that law or

custom together with the passage of the written Law with

which it had some distant connexion, offering it as an
additional law or a modification of the practice

Torah.

in the written

commanded

Thus, throughout the entire period

of their activity the Soferim who, no doubt, formed

some

kind of an authoritative organization with the high-priest

as

its

head, remained true to their name, and continued to

teach only the

Midrash

Book

of the

and nothing

That the

Law

with

its

interpretation

else.

activity of the

Soferim as an authoritative

This change, like most of the Kere and Ketib, originated with the Soferim,
The later teachers,
according to the talmudic tradition (Nedarim 37 b).
for obvious reasons,
in the

reflections
37

would not mention the corrections made by the Soferim

it would have cast unfavourable

legal parts of the Pentateuch, as

For

Halakot

on the authority of the

illustrations of this

Law and

the validity of the Halakah.

method of the

earliest

in the text itself, see the writer s article

Jewish Encyclopedia, VIII, pp. 579

ff.

Midrash to indicate

Midrash Halakah

in the

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

40

body of teachers ceased with the death of their last member,

Simon the Just I (about 270 B.C.) has already been shown.
It

was the change from the Persian to the Greek rule

the interruption of the activity and ended

that caused

the period of the Soferim.

brought about

and

many

in the

influenced the religious

their effect also

life

of the people.

These,

and the communal

upon the

activity

life

in turn,

institutions,

and authority of

All these changes in the inner

the teachers.

government

other changes in the conditions of

in the political status

and had

The change

life

of the

com

munity did not come to pass immediately after the people

came under Greek rule, for a people cannot be quickly
transformed by mere external influences.

It

was through

a long process, lasting about half a century, that these

changes were gradually effected.

Simon the

Just,

During the lifetime of

the new influences had not yet overthrown

the authority and the leadership of the

organized body of teachers.

Soferim as an

Simon who enjoyed the high

respect of the people could maintain the old order even

under the changed conditions by the very influence of his

Being the high-priest and the respected

leader of the people, he still preserved the authority of the

great personality.

and under his leadership they continued some of

usual activities.
But with the death of Simon all the

teachers,
their

influences of the

The

new order

of

of things

made themselves

felt.

the teachers as an authoritative

body
Even the authority of the High-priest was under
mined. He was no more the highest authority of a religious
activity

ceased.

community and its chief representative.

assumed authority over the community.

who had

as

government

much

influence

among

as the High-priest,

Other people

Laymen

arose

the people and with the

and they became

leaders.

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

The people who had now been

culture for half a century, acquired
familiar with

new views

had been taught by

of their fathers.

of

life,

contact with Greek

in

new

rich

became

ideas and

other than those which they

name

their teachers in the

The

41

and

of the law

influential classes

The

Greek ideas and followed Greek customs.

accepted

leaders of

the people were no longer guided by the laws of the

fathers,

The

the Torah.

upon

life

of the people

any longer controlled

by the laws and customs of the

solely
in

nor was the

all

matters of

fathers as contained

teachers were no
life,

as they

longer consulted

had been

former days,

in

when, with the High-priest at the head of the community,

they formed an authoritative body. Consequently, the

and the development of the laws of the

fathers did not keep pace with the rapid changes and
interpretation

developments

in

the actual conditions of

conditions of the time brought forth

which no decisions were

fathers,

provided

in

The changed

life.

new

questions

the

and no answers could be found even

laws

for

of the

in the inter

pretations and traditions of the Soferim, because such

These questions were
questions had never before arisen.
decided by the ruling authorities who were not teachers

Law, and in some cases probably by the people

themselves.
These decisions, presumably, were not always

of the

in

accordance with the principles followed by the teachers

of the Law.
authorities,

usage,

The

decisions in

and answers

became

to

new

in the course of a

practices of the people.

new

cases, given

questions, fixed

by

ruling

by popular

few decades the established

This development ensued because

the people could not distinguish between decisions derived

from the

Law by

and decisions given by

some ruling authority, but not based upon any law or
interpretation,

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

42

tradition of the fathers.

Neither could the majority of the

people distinguish between generally accepted customs

that had been recently introduced, and such as had been

handed down by the

To

fathers.

the people at large

were not concerned about historical and

who

archaeological

questions, both were alike religious customs sanctioned

by

popular usage.

Thus many new customs and

were no precedents

in

practices for which there

the traditions of the fathers and not

the slightest indication

in

Book

the

of the Law, were

observed by the people and considered by them as a part

of their religious laws

made

and

practices.

No

to secure the sanction of the authority of the

new

for these

Law

practices in order to harmonize the laws of

the fathers with the

The few teachers

only ones who could

of the times.

life

(disciples of the Soferim)

were the

perhaps have brought about

this

harmonization.

of interpretation they might have found

the

attempt was

Law some

in

By means

the

Book of

support for the new practices, and they

might have grafted the new and perhaps foreign customs

upon the old, traditional laws of the fathers. But these
teachers had no

disregarded by

official

authority

they were altogether

the leaders and ignored

by a

large part

of the people.

The

fact

that there

was no

official

activity

teachers, in the years following the death of

Just,

is

of the

Simon the

borne out even by the alleged traditional report

given in

Abot

I.

The Mishnah,

despite

its

anxiety to

represent a continuous chain of tradition and to maintain

that the activity of the teachers had never been interrupted,

yet finds

itself

unable to

fill

the gap between

Simon the

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

43

and Antigonos. 38 It does not mention the name of

even one teacher between the years 270 and 190 B.C., that is,
between the latest possible date of Simon s death and the
I

Just

time of Antigonos. Evidently tradition did not know of any

This would have been impos
teacher during that period.

had been any

sible if there
in

official activity

of the teachers

those years.
38

impossible to bridge over the gap in the succession of teachers

It is evident that Antigonos could not have been

It is

as given in the Mishnah.

Simon the Just

the successor of

Halevi

Joses.

not convincing.

As such they

and the immediate predecessor of the two

I,

arguments (Dorot Harisfwnim, I, ch. xii, pp. 198 ff.) are

The Mishnah speaks of the two Joses as contemporaries.

are also referred to Shabbat 15

a.

We

cannot for the purpose

was an uninterrupted
make of Jose b. Jonanan

of upholding the other tradition, namely, that there

chain of teachers, deny this explicit report and

man older by a full generation than Jose

had been the pupil and successor of Simon the Just I,
assumes, he could not have been succeeded directly by the

a colleague of Antigonos and a

b.

If Antigonos

Joezer.

as Halevi

two

(/.

c.}

We

Joses.

would then have a gap between 250

Simon the Just I must have

Antigonos the pupil of

the time

when

the

two Joses must have begun

B. c.,

died,

the date

and 180

their activity.

the pilpulistic arguments of Halevi against Frankel,

it is

when
B. c.,

In spite of

all

evident that the latter

assuming that Antigonos did not directly succeed Simon the Just I
If we still desire to consider the report in the Mishnah
(Hodegetica, p. 31).

is

right in

as correct,

we

must interpret

the Just II (see Weiss, Dor,

it

I,

Synagogue who was Simon

mean

to

p.

that

Antigonos succeeded Simon

95) and not the last

member

of the Great

(against Krochmal, More Nebuche

Indeed, the wording in the Mishnah seems to
lieigeman, pp. 52 and 174).
For if the Mishnah meant to say that Antigonos succeeded
indicate this.

the

first

Simon the Just who is mentioned in the preceding paragraph of the

Mishnah and designated as the last member of the Great Synagogue, it
would have said IJEIO t Tp, as it uses in the following passages the phrase
that

Dnft

v^p. The

pHn

specific

evidently shows

as the one

mention of the name

that

who preceded

At any

rate,

was no

official activity

it

is

it

Antigonos.

certain that after

we

is

pVE^D t^p

here referred to

there came a time

Even the
have

name
and Simon

Abot, could not succeed in finding the

between Simon

statement

This can only be Simon the Just

Simon

of the teachers.

struct the chain of tradition, such as

in the period

in the

was another Simon who

later

when

tendency

in the report in the

II..

there

to recon

Mishnah

of a single teacher who flourished

II

(see p. 116).

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

44

Even

those days, there were without doubt some

in

who

teachers

preserved the traditional teachings of the

There were some people who remained

Law.

the laws and the traditions of the fathers, and

some who studied

the

Law

in

faithful to

among them

the manner in which

had

it

However, these teachers had

was merely in a private capacity

been taught by the Soferim.

no

official

authority.

It

who wished

that they delivered their teachings to those

follow them.

However, absence of

to

authority not

official

only did not prevent but even helped the activities of the
teachers to

become

ments.

brought about two great results which later

most important factors in developing the

It

of great consequence for future develop

became the

Halakah and

shaping the Jewish life. In the first place,

it
brought about the popularization of the study of the
Law and paved the way for the rise of teachers not of
in

the priestly families.

the

text

of

the

which resulted

In the second

Book

of

the

Law

place,
in

in giving this text a sacred,

it

preserved

fixed

form,

unchangeable

character.

when the High-priest was

head of the community, and when the teachers under

In the days of the Soferim,

the

his leadership

formed an

official

body vested with authority

to arrange all religious matters in accordance with the

as they understood

limited to the priests

89

The

mostly,

if

Compare

it,

the knowledge of the

who

Law

Law was

were the only official teachers. 39

Soferim, up to the time of the death of Simon the Just I, were

See my Saddncees and Pharisees, p. 6.
not exclusively, priests.
also

Schiirer,

Geschichte,

II 4 ,

pp. 278-9, 373-4, and 455,

and

R. Smend, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach (Berlin, 1906), p. 346. Smend,
however, goes too far in assuming that even as late as the beginning of the
second century B. c. all the teachers of the Law were priests. This is not
correct.

In the middle of the third century B.C., after the death of

Simon

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

On

the one hand, the priests

who were

45

in possession of the

law and tradition of the fathers considered the teaching and

interpreting of the religious law as their priestly prerogative.

They would

therefore

Law

thorough knowledge of the

become
their

teachers. 40

own

lay people a

not impart to the

so that they too could

This would have resulted

special privileges, a sacrifice

On

not always willing to make.

the

in curtailing

which

priests are

other hand,

the

Law because they

the
of
their
on
official teachers in
could rely
authority
all matters religious.
They were satisfied that the lips
people had no impetus to study the

of the priest should keep

Law

seek the

at his

knowledge and that they should

and get from him decisions

mouth

But

when the

authority of the High-priest as the ruler of the

community

all

concerning

the

was gone, and the

of

questions

life.

priestly teachers also lost their official

authority, the study of the

Law was

no longer the activity

of an exclusive class of official teachers.

the Just

knowledge

there were already

many lay teachers. In the beginning of the

they already possessed great influence and were
members of the Gerousia. The description of the Soferim as sitting in
I,

second century

B. c.

the senate and knowing the

Law, which is given in Sirach 38, refers to

both lay- and priest-teachers.
40 The
saying Raise many disciples which is ascribed by the Mishnah
(Abot I) to the Men of the Great Synagogue, does not argue against this
,

statement.

among
educate

them

It

can be interpreted to mean either to raise many disciples

who should carry on the activity of teaching, or to

the priests

many

pupils in a

knowledge of the

religious law, but not to

make

very probable that the later

teachers ascribed to the early Soferim a motto which they thought the
Soferim should have promulgated. As the fact of their being priest-Soferim

was

authoritative teachers.

However,

it

is

forgotten, the later teachers ascribed to

them

their

own

democratic

These tendencies were against the monopolization of the

knowledge by the priests, and in favour of spreading the knowledge of
tendencies.

the

Law among

the people at large.

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

46
of the

gave

Law and

of the fathers no longer

the traditions

possessor the prerogative of sharing in the ad

its

At

of the community.

ministration

head of the

the

community now stood political leaders who arranged

communal affairs according to standards of their own.

The study

of the

piety, and as such

the one hand, the

it

Law now became

a matter of private

was not limited to the

priests

On

priests.

no longer had any

interest in

keeping the knowledge of the Law jealously to themselves,

as it did not bring them any special privileges.
For such
influence as the priests still had was theirs, not because
they

knew

priests, in

or taught the

Law, but because they were the

members of the

charge of the Temple, and

influential aristocratic families. 41

They

therefore

hesitancy in imparting a knowledge of the

Law

had no
the

to

must be kept in mind that there were at

lay people.
all times some true and faithful priests to whom their
It

was dearer than personal advantages and family

aggrandizement. These priests were now very eager to
religion

spread religious knowledge

among

On

the people.

the

other hand, the lay people were now more eager than
formerly to acquire such knowledge. Since there was no
official

body

of teachers to decide authoritatively

ligious matters, the pious

had to be

his

own

man who

religious

cared

authority.

for

He

all

the

re

Law

therefore

sought to acquire a correct knowledge of the laws and

the traditions of the fathers. This resulted in the gradual
spread of a knowledge of the Law
laymen, and in the rise of lay teachers

among the pious

who had as much

knowledge of the Law as the priestly teachers themselves.

These new teachers soon claimed for themselves the
41

See below, note

50.

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

47

which was formerly the prerogative of

religious authority

the priests.

For about half a century, during the ascendancy of the

power of the political leaders, these teachers, laymen, and
had no recognized authority.

priests

sulted as to the regulation of the

answer questions resulting from the

not called upon to

of

conditions

changed

They were not con

communal affairs, and

They

life.

contented

therefore

with

Law and

the
merely preserving
traditions that were left to them from the past, without
trying to develop them further or add to them new

themselves

the

teachings of their own.

Accordingly, they continued to

Law

teach the text of the

Book

tions given to

the Soferim and the Halakot, which

it

by

of the

with the interpreta

the latter indicated in or connected with the text of the

Law.

They

did not forget any of the interpretations or

42
teachings of the Soferim.

of the
to

as

Law

in

Thus they preserved the text

the exact form in which it was handed down

them by the Soferim, with all of its peculiarities, as well

all the changes and indications made in it by the

Soferim.

They neither changed the

indications of new laws therein.
And
for

4Z

inserted

after the text

was

years in a certain form, that became the fixed

many

and permanent form.

permanent form with
sidered

text nor

as

sacred, so

must emphasize

In the course of a few decades that

all

its

peculiarities

that no

came

to be con

one afterwards dared to

this point in opposition to

Oppenheim who assumes

that in the time of persecution they forgot the teachings of the Soferim

and

for this reason

began

to teach

independent Halakot.

The troublesome

times might have hindered original activity and the development of the
teachings, but could not have
teachings.

If

prevented the preservation of the older

they did study at all, they studied what was left to them

from the Soferim.

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

48

introduce textual
to do,

43

for the

changes,

Soferim of old used

purpose of indicating new laws or new

Thus we

meanings to old laws.

of

the

as

Simon the Just

I,

see that after the death

community and

the conditions in the

as a result thereof the activities of the teachers differed

greatly from those that were obtained in the times of the

Soferim.

There prevailed a

wherein the practical

by the law of the

authorities, nor

on

in

an

life

of religious

anarchy,

of the people was not controlled

fathers as interpreted

were the

official

state

by the

religious

activities of the teachers carried

way by an

authoritative

body.

This

chaotic state of affairs lasted for a period of about eighty

change took place which brought

the religious anarchy to an end. This happened about the
year 190 B.C., when an authoritative Council of priests and
years, until another great

laymen was again established. This new Council or Sanhedrin assumed religious authority to teach and interpret

Law and

the

proceeded to regulate the

munity according to the

life

of the

com

religion of the fathers.

According to a report in Josephus (Antiquities, XII,

3, 8),

Antiochus III manifested a very friendly attitude towards

the people of Judea after that province had come under his
Following his victory over the Egyptian king at the
battle of Panea (198 B.C.), he is said to have addressed to
rule.

his general

Ptolemaeus an

In this letter, reproduced

epistle

in

favour of the Jews.

by Josephus, the

following para-

We

are not considering here the slight changes which according

to Geiger (Urschrift, pp. 170 f.) were made as late as the time of R. Akiba
and according to Pineles (Darkah shel Torah, p. 96) even as late as the time
43

of Judah ha-Nasi

I.

As

a whole the text

was

fixed.

Possibly, the Pharisaic

and as they became the sole

authorities of the religious law, ventured again to make slight changes and
teachers, as the party

grew

in influence

to indicate their teachings in the text.

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

graph occurs

142)

And

according to the laws of their

of that nation

own country and

live

the

let

the

priests

and

Temple and the sacred

singers

be discharged from

senate

the

and

all

let

49

(yepovvia)

the

scribes

of

We
poll money and the crown tax and other taxes also.
learn from this that the Jews under Antiochus III were to
live according to their own laws, and that there was,
besides the priests, another authoritative body, a

or a

of which

Gerousia,

mention

Otherwise the

of the senate

is

some

true that

and

details in

the priests

the epistle prove the

authorship of Antiochus to be spurious.

by Antiochus.

not written

members.

also

sense. 44

separately would have no

It

laymen were

senate

It

was evidently

It

originated at a

much

later

date and was only incorrectly ascribed to Antiochus by

some

Hellenistic

Btichler,

writer

whom

followed

Josephus

Die Tobiaden nnd Oniaden, pp. 158

the conditions

(see

How

seq.).

the

Jewish community under

Antiochus III had been known to be very different from
if

ever,

in

those described in this epistle, neither Josephus nor his

authority would have accepted the authorship of Antiochus.
44

Buchler

(op.

ctf.,

p.

namely, that the Gerousia

explains

who

it

lived

senate

171) notices this strange feature in the epistle,

is

mentioned separately from the

was composed

of priests.

of the original epistle could have

how Josephus who

While

this

made the

may

explain

This

would have noticed

difficulty is

that

it

why

the author

it

One

or the other

did not represent actual conditions.

removed by assuming that Josephus knew

of Antiochus the Great the senate in Judea

that at the time

was formed not

exclusively of

the priests but also of laymen.

the epistle
a

body not
T

He

does not explain

was a Palestinian or the Palestinian authority that he
mistake,

followed could have accepted this epistle as genuine.

certainly

priests.

by assuming that the epistle was originally written by a man

outside of Palestine and who did not know that in Palestine the

He, therefore, did not find it strange that

should mention the senate and the priests, i. e. the senate as

identical with the priests.

T?

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

50

Evidently Josephus on his part had no reason to doubt

the genuineness

of this

and

epistle,

in

his

opinion

it

could well have originated from Antiochus.

This can only

be explained by assuming that Josephus knew from other
sources that, after Judaea had come under Syrian rule,

there was a revival of the religious

and a renewal

life

in

the community

of the official activity of the teachers.

From

same source he must have known that the people tried

again to live according to their laws and that there was at
the

the head of the

community an

authoritative body, a Senate

or a Gerousia, of which lay teachers also were members.

As

these events took place under the rule of Antiochus,

Josephus linked them in his mind with the political condi

tions under the same king and believed they were the
direct results of Antiochus s friendly attitude towards the
In this supposition Josephus was perhaps right.

Jews.
It

is

quite probable that the change in the government

brought about the change

community.

As

political leaders,

tion

it

composed of

in

the internal affairs of the

weakened the

it

made

priests

it

influence of the former

possible for that

new organiza

and lay members to assume the

leadership of the community.

And when

Josephus found

Antiochus, which permitted the

Jews to live according to their own laws and actually
spoke of a senate besides the priests, he could well believe

an

it

epistle, ascribed

to

to

have been written by Antiochus.

In a source older than Josephus we indeed find a report

of the

renewed

religious

activity

by an

authoritative

assembly composed of priests and lay teachers in the first

two decades of the second century B.C. I refer to the

Fragments

of a Zadokite

(Documents of Jewish

Work

published by Schechter

Sectaries, vol.

I,

Cambridge, 1910).

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

There

stated (Text

is

it

had delivered them

A,

p. i)

51

that 390 years after

(the Jewish people) into the

Nebuchadnezzar, the King of Babylon (about 196

390

years after

586

B.C.),

God made

B.C., i.e.

grow a plant

to

God

hands of

(i.e.

an

assembly) of Priests and Israelites. They (the members of

that assembly) meditated over their sin and they knew that

they had been guilty [of neglecting the religious laws].

to find the right

They sought

Law

way

[to lead the people

back

of God]. 45

Again on page 6 the same fact is

stated even more clearly.
There it is said that God took

to the

men

of understanding from

and from

priests)
45

The passage

vm

en

liTOTi nta aba

(-ITOU-I)

nb

nniK irvnb

^n

nx

amya

Israel wise
the text A,

in

Ta

nyoo

DWK
o

Aaron

teachers

p. i,

lines 5

owni

D.TPJJO bs

e.

(i.

rntfo

-a

ijrri

btf

p^i

*rna naninb TTT niin nnb

nw
*

Dp^i.

pin ppai
on^a aa
inciN aisa

PID^I

u^n

osijn

&M

w?

sT^o

onpy

non-priestly

reads as follows

ff.,

EHIS? pntfoi

n v^s*

from among the

(i.e.

And

i"n

at the

D u^ac

ai

end of the

wrath, three hundred and ninety years after He had delivered them into
the hand of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, He remembered them and

made bud from

Israel

and Aaron a root of a plant

to inherit

His land and

to

good of His earth. And they meditated over their sin and
they knew that they were guilty men and they were like the blind groping
rejoice in the

way twenty years. And God considered their deeds, for they sought
Him with a perfect heart, and He raised for them a teacher of righteousness

in the

to

make them walk

It is

Schechter).

in

the

way

of His heart

(Translation, as given by

evident that the author in describing the origin of the

Zadokite sect reviews the conditions that prevailed in Judea prior to

the formation of
(p. 5)

has

it,

this sect.

The

wrath

period of

the desolation of the land

is

Syria and Egypt before Antiochus the Great

was

or, as the parallel

the time of the wars

finally

passage

between

acquired Palestine.

had come to an end, about three hundred and ninety

years after God had given the people into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar
It

after this period

(about 196

Aaron.
Genesis

B. c.,

Plant
r.,

LIV,

390 after 586) that God raised up a plant from Israel and
here is a designation for an assembly or Sanhedrin (comp.
6,

pTlHJD

HT ?5?K

^VK Wl,

and Hullin 92

a,

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

52

Israelitic teachers)

and caused them to come together

assembly (BJ/W^). They dug the well

Torah 4G This means that the assembled
.

priests

teachers together searched the

in

it

of

way

Law
for

prescribing

that

as an
is

the

and lay

of the fathers to find

the

religious

needs of

their time.

The same

tradition pertaining to the renewed activity

of the teachers and the existence of a Sanhedrin composed

of priests and lay teachers in the time of Antiochus,

found underlying a report

this report, the

is

also

Mishnah.

in the

head of the Sanhedrin

at

According to
that time was Anti-

gonos of Soko, a lay teacher, and succeeding

him were Jose

ben Joezer of Zeredah and Jose ben Johanan of Jerusalem

(Abot I, 3-4). Of the latter two, Jose ben Joezer, a pious
is

priest,

We

have been the president and Jose ben

said to

learn from this

report that in that assembly or the reorganized

Sanhedrin, where the nucleus was formed

for the

two

parties,

Sadducees

and Pharisees, there also arose a third partjr or sect, composed both of
priests and Israelites who differed from the two other groups, the PriestThis third group acknowledged the

Sadducees and the Israelite-Pharisees.

rights of the lay people to be like the priests, but would otherwise not
follow the tendencies of these lay teachers who formed the nucleus of the

Pharisaic party. This third group formed a special sect under a teacher
of righteousness and emigrated to Damascus.
further learn from this report that for about twenty years there was

We

harmony between the various elements

way

tried to find a

with the
46

Law

of arranging the

of God, as handed

The passage on

D s D3n
DyBB*l
":-:-

in this

life

down

to

new assembly and

them from

their fathers.

p. 6, line 2-3, reads as follows

blWDl. Th e

that they

of the community in accordance

phrase Q^Dan

0*0123

^JO^EI

pHNJO

Pip"

reminds one of

the term

was

^Slty *D3n

Lay teachers of

Israelitic descent

which

later

on

the designation of the Pharisees, because these lay teachers in the

reorganized Sanhedrin formed the nucleus of the Pharisaic party.

See

my

Sadducees and Pharisees, in Studies in Jewish Literature issued in honour of

The phrase DJflDB ^ means Mie assembled
Dr. K. Kohler, pp. 116 ff.

them

like

DVH DN

^KB>

SW^,

Sam.

15. 4.

MIDRASH AND M1SHNAH

53

Johanan, a lay teacher, the vice-president of the Sanhedrin

Hagigah
in

II, 2).

Of

course, these reports in the Mishnah,

we have them,

the form in which

late date

are of a comparatively

and cannot be considered as

historical. 47

They

form part of that artificial reconstruction of history, under

taken by the later teachers who aimed to establish the
fiction of a

continuous chain of tradition and the alleged

uninterrupted leadership of the Pharisaic teachers through47

It is very unlikely that Jose b. Joezer was president (N* ^) of the

Sanhedrin although he belonged to an influential aristocratic family and
He and his colleague
was a priest (nJirDT.? TDH, Hagigah III, 2).

Jose

b.

Johanan probably were the leaders of that group of pious lay

who were the forerunners of the

teachers in the Sanhedrin, the Hasidim,

Pharisees.

This

where we read

may be

as follows

concluded from the report

Then

a company of Scribes to require

were the

first

peace of them.

among

justice.

Now

the children of Israel

(i. e.

These Hasidim who are here

are also designated as mighty

in

Mace.

7.

12-16,

did assemble unto Alcimus and Bacchides

men

of Israel

the Asideans (Hasidim)

non-priests) that sought

identified with the Scribes

(i.

e.

non-priests^, even all

We

such as were voluntarily devoted unto the Law (ibid., 2. 42).

learn
from these references that, prior to the Maccabean uprising, there were

who were not priests, that is, lay-teachers of Israelitic

who were mighty and influential in the community, otherwise they

already scribes
descent,

could not have assumed the authority to go to Alcimus to negotiate for

They evidently were of the same group of lay teachers in that
peace.

reorganized Sanhedrin,

were

distinct

who were

the forerunners of the Pharisees.

from the other members of the Sanhedrin

in that

They

they were

merely concerned with the religious liberty and were therefore willing
to recognize Alcimus if they could obtain from him peace and religious
freedom. Jose b. Joezer was among this group, and probably was their
leader (see above, note 29).

In the

was this group of the Hasidim

and considered as the Sanhedrin.
it

leaders of the

mind of the

whole Sanhedrin.

Its

Thus originated the

Zuggot as the heads of the Sanhedrin.

those teachers

who were

later Pharisaic teachers

Sanhedrin which was looked upon

leaders were considered as the real

in the

For

tradition about the

later tradition considers only

of the Pharisees as legitimate

Sanhedrin, and the Sadducees

who

members

constituted the majority of the

of the

members

and were the actual leaders of the Sanhedrin are regarded as intruders and
usurpers.

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

54
out

all

the past history.

Unhistorical as these reports

some

they certainly contain

be,

truth consisted in the fact,

some

known

authoritative assembly

may
This

kernel of truth.

to them, that there

composed

was

of priests and lay

men, Antigonos and the two

This historical report t
Joses, were prominent members.
teachers,

the

later

of which

teachers

They ignored
leaders

real

teachers
of the

the

as

elaborated

to

fit

into

their

scheme.

the other members, probably even the

all

of

these

Sanhedrin, and

that

traditional

those

represented

who were pious followers

law and who were so to speak the
leaders

real

fathers of the Pharisaic

However, whether Anti

the heads of the Sanhedrin

party.

gonos and Jose were really

as tradition represents them, or merely prominent members,

more pious group in

much is sure there was

or perhaps merely the leaders of the

that Sanhedrin, the Hasidim, this

an assembly or a Sanhedrin, composed of

and lay teachers with official authority to arrange

at that time
priests

the religious

affairs of

the people.

The members

of this

Sanhedrin took up the interrupted activity of the former

teachers, the Soferim, and, like them, sought to teach

and

interpret the Law and to regulate the life of the people in

accordance with the laws and traditions of the fathers.

But

in their

with the
great

attempt to harmonize the laws of the fathers

of their

life

own

times, they encountered

some

difficulties.

It is true,

the teachers

who were now members

of the

authoritative council or Sanhedrin, were in the possession

of the

Book

Law, in the exact form in which it was

them by the Soferim. They also knew all

of the

transmitted to

the interpretation of the Soferim, as well as

tional

teachings

all

and additional laws which

the tradi
the

latter

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

connected with

But

Pentateuch.

by the Soferim

teachings given

Law

of the

were not

ments of the new

answers

for all

the laws contained or indicated in

all

Book together with

the text of the

Book

on the written laws of the

based

or

55

in

the traditional

all

connexion with the

sufficient to

meet the require

These laws did not provide

situation.

the questions that arose, and

could not

new problems in the life of the

new problems and questions were

furnish solutions for the

people.

For,

the result of

these

all

new

conditions of

life

now

prevailing in Judea,

conditions utterly different from those in the times of the

Soferim.
old laws

The problem then became, how

new rules and decisions for the

unprecedented cases that

This

difficulty

now

to find in the

questions and

arose.

was aggravated by the

fact that

the seventy or eighty years of religious anarchy,

during

many new

had been gradually adopted by the people. In

the course of time, these came to be considered as Jewish

practices

religious practices,

and no

distinction

was made between

them and older

religious practices contained in the teachings

of the Soferim and based on the traditions of the fathers.

Again, the outlook of the people had broadened and their

religious concepts had become somewhat modified during
those years.

Many an

old law

meaning or was given a

of an authoritative

opinion of the people

of that law.

Many

new

assumed a new and

different

application, not by the decree

body of teachers, but by the general

who had outgrown the older conception
questions were decided during those

by the people themselves or by such rulers and leaders

they had. Such decisions, though not given by any

years
as

and not derived from the written law,

became, nevertheless, recognized rules and principles, re-

religious authority

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

56
spected

by the people

much

as

or indicated in the Book.

It

as their other laws written

was such new decisions and

popular modifications of some laws, as well as the generally

observed new customs and practices, that constituted a
large part of the traditional laws

and

practices.

These

traditional laws naturally had no indication in the written

Law and

no basis

in the teachings of the Soferim,

because

they developed after the period of the Soferim.

The reorganized Sanhedrin (after 190) had to reckon
with these new laws

and

customs,

now considered

traditional because observed and practised

for a generation or

part of the religious

more.
life

They had

of the people.

by the people
them as

to recognize

But

in order to

able to accept and teach them officially as part of the

gious

Law,

the

members

authority for these

either to find for

of the Sanhedrin had to find

new laws and customs.

them some

interpretation of the written

not an easy task to perform.

members

The

reli

They had
and

some

This, however, was

present teachers, although

of an official body, like the Soferim of old, could

not, like these Soferim, indicate

means

Law.

be

some

basis in the traditions

teachings of the Soferim, or to find proof for them by

new

as

new laws

in

the text

by

of slight changes or additional signs, because the

was gone. The text was now in

a fixed form which was considered sacred, and no changes
pliability of the text

could be

made

in

it.

The simple methods

of interpretation

used by the Soferim were also inadequate for the needs of

These simple methods could not
the present teachers.

enough interpretations on which to base the new

decisions needed for the times.
Throughout the period of

furnish

the Soferim the development of the interpretations of the

Law

kept pace with the development of the conditions of

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

But

life.

for the teachers of the

methods were

these simple

57

reorganized Sanhedrin,

because their de

insufficient

velopment had been arrested for about eighty years. We

have seen above that the development in the conditions of
life

took place without a corresponding

the teachings and interpretations of the

after the Soferim,

in

development

Labouring under such disadvantages the new San

hedrin found it very difficult to solve the problem of

Law.

Law

harmonizing the

of the fathers with the

life

of the

people.

Having no reports concerning that time, we cannot

trace the activity of the new Sanhedrin from its beginnings.

We know

only that it was organized after Judea had come

under Syrian rule, that is, after 196 B.C. Some years must
have passed before the above-mentioned difficulties were
fully

realized

and plans proposed

was probably not

until the

for their solution.

time of Antiochus Epiphanes

that such definite plans were considered. 48

48

From

It

the report in the Zadokite

Fragment

we

Different solu-

learn that for twenty

was harmony among the various elements of that reorganized

Sanhedrin and all sought God with a perfect heart and endeavoured to order
their lives in accordance with His Law (see above, note 44).
This means

years there

that before the year 175 B.C., that

is, twenty years after 196 B.C., the date

Sanhedrin, the differences of opinion did
not lead to an outspoken opposition between the different groups within

new

of the organization of that

that Sanhedrin.

reign

so

It

was only

after the

year 175 B.C., that

is,

under the

of Antiochus Epiphanes, that these differences of opinion

marked as

distinct from

to characterize the different

one another.

where we read

as follows

This
l
:

is

groups

also stated in the

And when

in

that

became

Sanhedrin as

Assumptio Mosis

6. 2

the time of chastisement draws

nigh and vengeance arises through the kings

who

share in their guilt and

punish them, they themselves also shall be divided as to the truth.

refers to the time before the Maccabean revolt, and the king through
they will be punished can only refer to Antiochus Epiphanes.

This

whom

We

are

accordingly told that in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, after the year
175 B.C., there was a division among the Jews themselves in regard to

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

58

by the various members of the Sanhedrin.

tions were offered

This difference of opinion

problem caused a breach

in regard to the solution of this

in

that Sanhedrin

which

ulti

mately resulted in a division into parties, namely, Pharisees

and Sadducees.

was

This breach

in the

effected during the time of Jose

unanimity of opinion
ben Joezer and Jose

ben Johanan. the successors of Antigonos, and this is

possibly the historic fact upon which is based the tradition
that ascribes the origin of the two parties, Pharisees and
this particular time. 40

Sadducees to

The

group in that assembly, whose exclusive

had
privilege
formerly been to give instruction in religious
matters, and who even now participated prominently in the
priestly
it

the truth, that

Pharisees.

The two groups men

as regards their religious laws.

is,

tioned there are those

Compare

who

later

also

the

on formed the two

Book

Enoch

of

parties,

90. 6,

Sadducees and

where these two

groups, the nucleus of the two parties, are referred to as appearing first
at that time.
This also agrees with the report in 2 Maccabees, that in the

days of Onias
strictly

Law
49

ch.

owing

III,

before Antiochus Epiphanes, the laws were kept very

goodliness of Onias

to the

The legendary story in Abot

X, Schechter,

p.

origin of the conflict

Antigonos.

who was

a zealot for the

R. Nathan (version A, ch. V, version B,

it dates back the

between the two parties

All that the story really

which divided them

first

d.

26) contains a kernel of truth in that

or successors of Antigonos there

the

(3. i)

(4. 2).

into

tells

us

to the time of the pupils of

is

that

were already great

among

Only one must keep

two groups.

disagreement was not yet a real division.

the disciples

differences of opinion
in

The complete

mind

that

separation

of the two groups and their formation into two distinct parties took place
later

on

note

2).

in the time of

John Hyrcanus

(see

This seems also to be indicated

where the statement Hp 1^1

D1

of the successors of Antigonos.

my Sadducees and Pharisees,

in the story of

Abot

d.

p. 8,

R. Nathan,

*
they separated refers to the pupils
This would refer to the time of Joshua

"OS"!

Perahiah, the successor of Jose b. Joezer, who was the pupil of Antigonos.
This explanation will answer the objections raised by Halevi (Doroth

b.

Harishonim,

I c,

VIII, 169

Sadducean party

ff.)

against putting the date of the origin of the

at the time of the pupils of

Antigonos.

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

communal and

administration of the

59
50

had

religious affairs,

a simple solution for the problem in conformity with the

maintenance of their authority. In their opinion, the main

thing was to observe the laws of the fathers as contained in

Law, because the people had pledged

If
themselves, by oath, in the time of Ezra, to do so.
changed conditions required additional laws and new regu
the

Book

of the

and

lations, the priests

them according

They maintained

8-13.

were competent to decree

rulers

to authority given to

them

in

Deut.

For

generations had always exercised this authority.

deem

reason they did not

17.

that the priestly rulers of former

it

necessary that

all

the

this

new laws

and regulations needed for the changed conditions of life

should be found indicated in the Book of the Law or based
on the teachings of former generations.

members

the need of developing the old

feel

Law.

interpretations into the written

written

Thus the

priestly

of that assembly, the future Sadducees, did not

Law

with

all

laws, or of forcing

They

declared the

the traditional interpretations of the

Soferim absolutely binding.

However, as

rulers of the

people, they claimed the right to decide by virtue of their

own authority those new questions for which the laws of

the fathers did not provide.

This apparently simple solution offered by the priestly

group in the Sanhedrin did not find favour with the lay
50

Even during the

period,

when

activity as authoritative teachers,

authority.

were

Their families

influential leaders.

still

the priests did not carry on any

they were

become accustomed

Their influence
of the

Law

in

official

not without influence and

possessed political power, and some of them

In the

Temple they had an undisputed authority

(see Schurer, Geschichte, 114, pp. 279-80).

thus

still

As

priests

and leaders they had

to exercise authority independently of the

the last few decades

was

Law.

not due to their being teachers

but to the fact that they formed an influential aristocracy and

had control over the Temple and

its

service.

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

60

members

of that

These lay members who had

body.

never had a share in ruling the people, now, because of

their

knowledge

the priests.

of the

They

Law, claimed equal authority with

refused to recognize the authority of

the priests as a class, and, inasmuch as

had proven
entrust to

unfaithful guardians of the

them the

many

of the priests

Law, they would not

regulation of the religious

life

of the

In the opinion of these democratic lay teachers,

people.

an opinion also shared by some pious priests, the right to

decide religious questions given in Deut. 17. 9 ff. to the
priests

was not given

to

them

as a family privilege merely

because they were priests, but because they were teachers

the Law, and only as long as they were teachers

of

Law.

of the

The same

teachers of the

Law

was equally granted to the

who were not priests. Both priests
right

and lay teachers had no other authority except that of

speaking in the name of the Law. They had merely the
right of interpreting the Law and of deciding questions
according to their understanding of the Law.
absolutely no authority to issue
questions according to

down

in

new laws

principles

Law

the

the Law, for

people

in all its possible situations

controlled

or decide religious

other than those

entire

life

preted by the teachers, whether priest or layman.

authority,

decisions

Law

and

61

see

as inter
51

of the fathers to be the sole

these lay teachers

now had

to

find

rules necessary for the practical

time contained or implied

of the

should be guided and

by no other authority than the Law

Acknowledging the

in the

Law.

They

life

also

all

Sadducees and Pharisees.

the

of their

had to

For further details about the attitude of each group towards the

my

laid

alone was to be the

The

authority of the Jewish people.

They had

Law

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

Law

devise methods for connecting with the

now

decisions and customs which were

6l

all

those

new

universally observed

by the people, thus making them appear

as part of the

laws of the fathers.

There were two methods by which they could accom

The one was to expand the Midrash of
plish this result.
the Soferim, that is to develop the method of interpretation

new

used by the Soferim and to invent

means of which they could derive new

written

Law, and

The

practices.

other

method was

of the Fathers

merely the written Book of the

interpretations.

In other words,

the belief that not

down

in the

by

decisions from the

find sanction therein for various accepted

Law

of the term

exegetical rules,

all

to enlarge the definition

so as to

Law
it

mean more than

with

all

its

possible

meant a declaration of

the laws of the fathers were handed

written words of the Book, but that

some

religious laws of the fathers were transmitted orally, inde

pendently of any connexion with the Book. Either method,

to an extent, meant a departure from the old, traditional
point of view, a course which the teachers naturally hesitated
to take.

In spite of considerable reluctance, the teachers

gradually were led to make use of both of these methods.

At

they attempted to expand the Midrash, the form

which they were accustomed to use. They developed new
first

methods of interpretation by which they could derive from

the Law new decisions for current cases and even justify

some of the
for

some

existing practices and find scriptural support

decisions which had originally been given without

reference to the written

Law.

However, the enlarged use of

new and more developed Midrash methods was not

sufficient

to secure proofs for all necessary decisions and find scriptural

authority for

all

existing laws and accepted practices.

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

62

There were many

practices, generally accepted

by the

people as part of their religious life, for which even the

developed Midrash with its new rules could find no support

Law.

This was especially the case

with such decisions and practices as originated in the time
or proof in the written

after

origin

In the opinion of the teachers, the

the Soferim.

of

these

reasoned thus

laws
It is

and

customs was Jewish.

They

hardly possible that foreign customs

and non-Jewish laws should have met with such universal

The total absence of objection on the part
acceptance.
of the people to such customs vouched for their Jewish origin,
in the

opinion of the teachers.

Accordingly, the teachers

themselves came to believe that such generally recognized

laws and practices must have been old traditional laws and
practices accepted

by the

fathers

and transmitted to

lowing generations in addition to the written Law.

fol

Such

a belief would naturally free the teachers from the necessity

of finding scriptural proof for

all

the

new

practices.

They

could teach them as traditional Halakot not dependent

upon the written Law, that

is

to say

in

the Mishnah-form.

However, the theory of an authoritative traditional law

(which might be taught independently of the Scriptures)

was altogether too new to be unhesitatingly accepted.

Although it may be safely assumed that the fathers of the
Pharisaic party did not originally formulate the theory of
an oral law in the same terms and with the same boldness

with which
still

it

even in

was proclaimed by the later Pharisaic teachers,

its original form the theory was too startling

and novel to be unconditionally accepted. Even those

teachers who later became the advocates of the so-called
oral law could not at

idea that

first

become

easily reconciled to the

some laws had been handed down by

tradition,

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

side

side with the written

by

the latter.
*

63

law and equal

in authority to

Accordingly, these teachers applied the term

Traditional

Law

only to such practices and rules, whose

was unquestioned and whose universal

acceptance went back to the time before the memory of
52
The absence of objection to any such law or
living men.
religious authority

custom pointed

an old Jewish tradition as its

source, so that the teachers were justified in believing it to
in itself to

be a genuinely traditional law. But even

such generally accepted rules and practices,

in

the case of

it

was only as
them inde

a last resort that the teachers would present

pendently as traditional laws.

They

preferred to resort to

the developed methods of interpretation, which, although

also

new and

also a departure

from the older Midrash,

were yet not so startling as the idea of declaring a new

source of authority for religious laws in addition to the
written Torah.

Wherever there was the remotest

of doing so,

bility

hermeneutical rules to find

support

for

these

possi

they would seek by means of new

in

traditional

the words
laws.

of the

Torah

could

They

thus

continue to teach them in connexion with the written Law,

that

is

in the

Midrash-form, as of old.

Only

in a

very few

when it was absolutely impossible to establish by

means of the Midrash any connexion between the tradi
tional practice and the written Law, would they teach the
cases,

same

as independent traditional Halakah, that

is

to say, in

52

It might perhaps be said that the theory grew and forced itself
upon
the teachers without any intention on their part to formulate it. They

could not ignore certain practices, considered by the people to be religious.

Since they could not trace their origin, they
They had to teach them.

assumed that they were

traditions of the fathers.

It

was but one

step,

almost an unconscious one, from this to the declaration, that the fathers
received their traditional laws together with the written Law.

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

64

the Mishnah-form. 53

made

in this first introduction of the

very limited use lay the possibility of a

more general

when

Once

application.

use

it

new form with

much wider and

was conceded

that,

absolutely necessary, a form of teaching other than

the Midrash could be used,

of

first

of the Mishnah-form.

However,
its

This, no doubt, was the very

it

what to consider a case of

the individual teacher.

became merely a question

necessity.

To some

This varied with

Mishnah-

teachers, the

form appealed even where the Midrash-form was possible,

but not acceptable, as, for instance, when the interpretation
of Scriptures offered in support of the decision was not

For even the developed Midrash methods and

the new rules of interpretation were not all of them accepted
approved.

by

all

the teachers.

Some

teachers would go further than

happened that rules and interpretations

offered by one teacher would be rejected by another.
We
that
that
one
it
often
teacher
may presume
happened
the others.

It often

would try by means of a new interpretation to support

a decision from Scripture, while other teachers, although
rejecting that particular interpretation,
decision, either because

or because

it

would accept the

of the authority of that teacher

was accepted by the majority.

These other

teachers of course could not teach such a decision in the

Midrash-form, because they rejected the particular Midrash

furnished for the decision.

They were compelled

such a decision as an abstract Halakah, that

Mishnah-form.

Fortunately,

such instances did occur.

we

to teach

is,

in

the

have positive proof that

This actually happened

in the

53
Accordingly the Midrash always remained the main form of teaching
and the Mishnah only gradually came to be used alongside of it (see above,
notes 8 and 22).

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

65

case of the oldest Halakot preserved to us in the Mishnah-

As

form, namely, the Halakot of Jose ben Joezer.

decisions were taught

presently be shown, these

teachers

will

by the

independent Halakot in the name of Jose,

as

because the interpretations given by Jose

in their

support

were not approved by the other teachers. To prove that

this was the case, we have to examine these Halakot in
order to ascertain their exact meaning, also Jose
in

share

them, and the attitude of the other teachers towards

them.

These Halakot are found

and they read

pi

by\

DV

as follows

Nine?

in the

M
sscp ^N by nT-ra D N* ityv

mpm

npi ,3^nDD NJVDI

iri>

Mishnah, EduyotVIII,4,

p^i (p^an)

Tj?n

NTQED M

Jose ben Joezer of Zeredah stated regarding the Ayyal

Kamsa [a certain
as clean
liquids

species of locust] that

it is

to be considered

permitted to be eaten), and regarding the

(i.e.

of the

slaughtering

place,

that

they are to

considered as clean, and that [only] that which has

into direct contact with a dead body becomes unclean.

him

they [the other teachers] called

There are a few

difficulties in

point out before

we

can

be

come

And

Jose the Permitter

these Halakot which

get at their

full

we must

meaning and

demonstrate their bearing upon our theory.

The

first

They

language.
in

which
54

There

strange

all
is

feature

are given in

in

these

no other halakic decision

in the

by

Hillel

saying

it

already the language of the people.

for the other

L.

Mishnah expressed in the

I, 13) was either

The Aramaic saying of Hillel (Abot

while he was still in Babylon, or because

to the people as a popular

two sayings

in

was

their

is

in

Hebrew,
54
Mishnah are o
o;iven.

other Halakot of the

Aramaic language.
uttered

Halakot

Aramaic and not

it

was addressed

which was then

reason would also account

given in Aramaic

The

latter

Abot V, 22-3 given

in the

Aramaic language.

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

66

Weiss

tries to

account for the Aramaic language of these

Halakot by assuming that they were remnants of the

teachings and decisions of the Soferim (Dor, I, p. 66), who
according to his assumption delivered
the Aramaic language

55

all

their teachings in

(Introduction to Mekilta, p.

iv).

Jose, according to Weiss, merely attested to these decisions,

but did not originate them.

rests

upon

This explanation, however,

In the

false premises.

first

place, if the

Aramaic

of these Halakot was due to their being decisions of the

Soferim,

we ought

Mishnah

in the

to

find

many more Halakot

Aramaic language.

in

the

For there are certainly

more teachings of the Soferim preserved in our Mishnah.

Weiss himself points out (Dor, I, p. 65) many Mishnahs
which, in his opinion, are very old and originated in the
55 It

surprising to find that

is

He

also reasons in a circle.

Weiss not only

himself mentions

contradicts himself, but

many

proofs for assuming

that

Hebrew was used by

He

has absolutely no reason for assuming that the Soferim taught in

However, just because these three decisions of Jose are ex

the majority of the people and by the Soferim.

Aramaic.

Aramaic, and because

opinion Jose received these decisions

the Soferim, he concludes that
from
language
the Soferim must have taught in Aramaic. And as a proof for his opinion

pressed

in

their form

in

and

in his

in their

that these decisions are from the Soferim

he can only

cite the fact that

they

was the language of the

Weiss here follows Krochmal who assumes (in More Nebuke

are expressed in Aramaic, which, in his opinion,

Soferim.

Haaeman, X, pp. 52-3) that the language of the people in the time of
Ezra was Aramaic. Both Krochmal and Weiss seem to have been misled
by the haggadic interpretation of the passage in Neh. 8. 8, given in b. Nedarim
37 b, D13~in HT EniEJD, which they understood to refer to an Aramaic
Following this Haggadah, they assume that as early as the
time of Ezra the Torah had been translated inf.o the Aramaic (see Krochmal,
translation.

/.

c.j

and Weiss, Dor,

Wien,

1896, p. 58).

I,

p.

54

compare

Hence they

and Akylas,
an Aramaic translation was

also Friedmann, Onkelos

argue,

if

necessary, then the language of the people must have been Aramaic.
this is a mistake.

There was no translation of the Torah

Ezra, as the people spoke

written.

Hebrew, the language

in

in the

But

time of

which the Torah was.

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

time of the Soferim.

Why

is it

67

then that this one Soferic

saying transmitted by Jose has been retained in the original

language, the Aramaic, while all the other teachings of the
Soferim, which no doubt are preserved in our Mishnah,

have been translated into the later Hebrew?

56

Further

more, the whole premise that the Soferim gave their teach
ings in Aramaic, declared

Mekilta, ibid.) to be

by Weiss (Introduction

beyond doubt,

is

absolutely

to the

false.

All

indications point to the fact that the Soferim gave their

teachings in Hebrew, the language which the people spoke.

The

exiles

who

returned from Babylon did not bring with

them the Aramaic language. They spoke Hebrew, as is

evident from Neh. 13. 24, where Nehemiah complains that

some

of the

children were unable to speak

language, that

Hebrew.

is

It certainly

the Jewish

cannot be assumed

that the Soferim, as teachers of the people, would set the

bad example of using any language other than

The Aramaic language came into

Palestine at a much later date 58

use

among

their

own. 57

the people in

(see Schiirer, Geschichte^

to Weiss, then, we would have to account for another

change in the method of teaching, namely, the change in the
language, the medium of instruction, from the Aramaic to the later Hebrew,
66

According

radical

and one would have to

fix

the time and find the reason for the change.

57

Weiss himself says (Dor, I, p. 54) that Nehemiah and the earlier
Soferim endeavoured to keep up the Hebrew, and only some of the people
did not understand Hebrew perfectly.
But if so, why did the Soferim give
all

their teachings in

Aramaic?

58

Schurer points out that the Aramaic of Palestine could not have been
brought along by the returning exiles, as the Aramaic spoken in Palestine
was the Western Aramaic and not the Eastern Aramaic spoken in Babylon.

Friedmann

(op.

tit.,

p. 57)

assumes that the language of the returning exiles

was the Babylonian Aramaic, but that in the course of time this language
was changed and influenced by the Aramaic of Palestine. This assumption
is without proof. The proofs cited by Friedmann for the use of the Aramaic
language do not prove anything with regard to the time of the Soferim.

F 2

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

68
II 4

Even

pp. 23-6.

Aramaic language had

after the

become the language of the people, Hebrew remained the

language of the school and the teachers, the D D2n pts6.
For this reason we have all the Halakot in the tannaitic
s

literature,
in

such as Mishnah and halakic Midrashiin, given

Hebrew.
Aside from

of the Soferim,

these considerations as to the language

all
it

is

altogether

Halakot with the Soferim.

to connect these three

wrong

are not Halakot of the

They

Soferim, which Jose merely transmitted and attested

to,

they are decisions which originated with Jose himself and

for which he offered reasons and scriptural proofs.
And
this brings us to the discussion of the

second difficulty in

our Mishnah, namely, the introductory term Tyn.

term

means

Yj?n

Some

what one knows or has seen or heard.

understood the term
sense,

Tjjn

in

and have declared

it

Mishnah

this

mean

to

scholars have
in

this

very

that Jose merely

that these decisions were older traditional laws

testified

and

This

literally to testify, to state as a witness

As we have

practices.

seen above, Weiss assumed

that they were decisions of the Soferim for the genuineness

But

of which Jose vouched.

absolutely incorrect to

is

it

take the term Tjjn here in the sense that Jose merely
testified

to older traditional laws

The Aramaic became

the language of the

of the second century B. c.

much

The

and decisions.

Jews

As

far

in Palestine in the first half

proofs adduced by Friedmann

(7. c.,

p.

58)

second century B. c. Saadya Gaon, in

the preface to his Sefer Ha-Iggaron (Harkavy, Zikron la-Rishonhn ?J p. 54),
states that about three years before the rule of Alexander in Palestine the
refer to a

later date than the

Jews began

to

neglect

nations in the land

(i. e.

chronology (see pp. 113

Hebrew and adapted

Aramaic).
ff.),

While

he certainly

the fact that the returning exiles spoke

.many years that they began

to

is

the language of the other

his date

is

based upon a

wrong

correct in his statement as to

Hebrew and

speak Aramaic.

that

it

was only

after

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

as

we know,

the

69

method of procedure followed by the

teachers of the Halakah in receiving a teacher

in

regard to

some

testimony alone.

was

rule or practice

They

testimony

to consider the

either decided according to

or

it,

some reason they would not do so, they stated that

Without reflecting upon the testifying teacher,
reason.

if

for

they would seek to invalidate the testimony or to deny

its bearing upon the case under discussion (compare Eduyot
II, 2

VIII, 3

Sanhedrin VII,

Nowhere do we

IX, n).

and Tosefta Sanhedrin

they hold the

find that

testi

59
fying teacher responsible for the decision which he reports.
59

The

case of Akabiah b. Mahalalel (M. Eduyot V. 6)

whom

"

the other

teachers held responsible for the decisions which he stated before them,
cannot be cited as an instance against this statement. It is doubtful, to say

the

least,

whether the four decisions of Akabiah, although likewise introduced

s
were old traditional Halakot to which he merely
*J S/n,

with the term

testified.

The controversy between Akabiah and the other teachers is shrouded

The later teachers, for reasons best known to themselves,
did not care to report about it in detail.
They acknowledged only with
reluctance that there were disputes among the older teachers about the

in mystery.

traditional laws, that such

an eminent teacher as Akabiah protested against

what was accepted by others as traditional laws, and that harsh means
were used to silence such protests. The knowledge of these facts would
unfavourably upon the validity of the traditional law. For this
reason one of the later teachers also denied the fact that Akabiah was put
under ban (ibid.}. From the meagre reports preserved in our sources it is

reflect

difficult to

obtain a clear account of the nature of the dispute and of

what

actually took place between Akabiah and the other teachers. It is, however,
very probable that Akabiah was the author of these four decisions, and that

the term TJJH in this case

is

likewise to be taken in the sense of

stated

apparent from the very demand

to retract which the other teachers made.
They could not have asked him
declared

and not

testified

This

is

to take back his testimony, but they could ask

From

the expression used in this

"IftlN

JVTK?,

it

is

also evident that

four decisions, that he

merely

demand

Akabiah was

was the one who

testified that others said

him

to retract,

them.

his

to change his opinion.

Qi-QI nSDIND
"Tltll

"p

own

authority in these

said these things,

Again,

and not that he

in his advice to his

son

to>

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

70
Here,
tfnt?

in the case of Jose,

the Permitter
If Jose

-decisions.

however,

we see that they called Jose

thus making Jose responsible for the

had been merely

testifying to the decisions

of former teachers, then those former teachers, the Soferim

or whoever
*

permitted

Permitter

This

they may have been, were the ones who

and not Jose. Why, then, call Jose
the

K^

even more strange since we do not hear that the

is

other teachers gave any argument against his decisions

and, as

we

norm of

shall see,

they even accepted them nshrh

60

practice

It is therefore

Halakot, though introduced with the phrase

follow the majority, Akabiah uses the words

D OIIDH
and

"""O^H

linxbl

to hold to the opinion of the

from

(i. e.

whom

words

Tyn, were

TITH

better to abandon the opinion of an individual

It is

also evident that the decisions of

teacher

as

evident that these

many

From

(ibid., 7).

these words

it is

Akabiah were the opinion of an individual

himself), and not the opinion of the majority of the teachers

We

Akabiah received them.

TlTOm TTOV ^N

are put into Akabiah

must therefore assume that the

D^n^n DD TOD:? ^H
S

(ibid. 7),

which

mouth, are a later addition. They form an attempt

on the part of a later teacher to minimize the sharpness of the conflict
Its purpose was to make it
between Akabiah and his contemporaries.
s

appear as if there had always been perfect harmony among the teachers,
and that only in this case each had a different tradition which he had to
follow.

This, however,

is

a very poor attempt, for

there could have been different traditions.

conflict of opinions

It

it

only

does not explain

how

shifts the date of the

from the time of Akabiah and his colleagues

to the

time

of their teachers and predecessors.

It is

also possible that the

same

exonerate Akabiah added the word

later author

Wit,

who

to introduce

thus representing them as being based upon an

thus attempted to

Akabiah

s decision,

older tradition which

Akabiah had.
60

Levy erroneously states (Ozar Nehmad, III, pp. 29-30) that Jose s
were ignored by the other teachers. From the talmudic discussion
Pesahim i6a (comp. also Maimonides, Yad. Tum at Oklin, X, 16) and

decisions

Abodah zarah 37 a b it is evident that the decisions of Jose were accepted

by the other teachers and made the norm for practice,

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

7!

not older traditional laws transmitted by Jose as a mere

own

witness, but Jose s

*

permitted

Talmud who

Samuel
Jose

s,

in

the one

who

This

Wit?.

is

Amoraim in
decisions.
Rab and

the discussions of the

by

try to explain these

attempting to give a reason for one decision of

use the word

opinion

He was

and he deserved the name

further confirmed

the

teachings.

And

he (Jose) held or was of the

when the reason for another decision is
"ODp

asked, the phrase vh&np

Nm

what do they (Jose and

in

opponent or opponents) differ is used (Abodah zarah

37 a, b). Again, when R. Papa ventured to say in regard
to one of the decisions that it was an old traditional law,

his

TEa KTD^n, he was promptly refuted (Pesahim 17 b).

see that in the talmudic discussions about these

rb

Thus we

decisions they are taken as Jose s

own

teachings and not as

older traditional laws.

This correct interpretation removes all the difficulties

from our Mishnah. The term Tyn is to be taken here in
the sense of declared

or

stated

these decisions are expressed

is

nated.

by the comparatively
It is

we have them,
in the

in

which

by

days of the Soferim, but

late date at

which they

their present form.

These

are not preserved to us in Jose

origi

decisions, as
s

own

words,

which he gave them. Jose gave these

Hebrew and in Midrash-form. He taught them

form

decisions in

in

probably also due to the peculiar circumstances

which gave them

nor

The Aramaic

to be accounted for, not

their alleged origin in the early

rather

in

connexion with the several Scriptural passages on which

he based the decisions.

mitted these decisions,

The
for

teachers, however,

reasons of their

own

who

(to

trans

be stated

below), detached these decisions from their scriptural bases

and expressed them

in

the Aramaic language.

That Jose

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

72

had

scriptural proofs for his decisions,

fact

that the

these

Amoraim

in the

or reasons.

proofs

evidenced by the

is

Talmud endeavour

Evidently the

to find

Amoraim were

convinced that some scriptural proofs did underlie these

decisions, although not mentioned by the teachers who
transmitted

them.

By

Amoraim, whose

the

following

analysis of these Halakot probably echoes older tradition,

we
in

be able to find the midrashic proofs given by Jose

will

support of his decisions.

In the case of one decision the midrashic arguments of

Jose and his opponents have fortunately been preserved,

namely, in the case of the third decision which is mpHi

axnDD NTO:} one who touches a corpse becomes unclean
.

We

must

meaning of the decision.

This decision does not mean simply that one who touches
first

arrive at the correct

a corpse becomes unclean, for this

Bible in regard to a
in

human

is

corpse

expressly stated in the

(Num.

19.

n)

as well as

regard to the carcase of an animal (Lev. Ji. 27 and 29)

or a reptile

Permitter

Furthermore, Jose

(ibid., 31).

evidently because

in

three

all

called

the

decisions

he

is

permits things that were formerly considered forbidden.

He, therefore, could not mean to teach us, in this last

what becomes unclean and therefore

decision, concerning

forbidden.
decision

61

We

arrive

at

the

correct
G1

by emphasizing the word KJVD3

Frankel (Hodegetica,

p.

32) explains the

meaning of this
and interpreting

decision

of Jose to

mean

who

has come into direct contact with a corpse

becomes unclean but one degree less than the corpse itself, i. e. he becomes
that Jose decided that one

UK. Frankel bases

2XDDD becomes unclean since it is

an nKBIBn 2K and not an nNDIBil flUK

planation on the expression

3KDD, which
is

wrong.

he could

could

also

he makes unclean

But

ex

this explanation

becomes only an riKDItOH 2tf

make others unclean, and thus be a 2KDE and not merely a

In the
still

mean

his

not said

first

place,

if

the

]"IEQ

V313

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

73

it to mean
(of a
[only] he who touches a dead body
human being or an animal or a reptile) becomes unclean
but one who touches a thing or person that has itself
,

62
become unclean by contact with a corpse (i.e. mpH2
*!)
does not become unclean. This interpretation of Jose s
third decision is given in the Talmud (Abodah zarah 37 b)
1

Hip"

and

is

correct despite the objections raised

Talmud

stated correctly in the

(ibid.),

As

by Raba.

the other teachers

before and during the time of Jose were of the opinion that
Secondly, as Weiss (Dor,
is

I,

p. 100,

note) pointed out, the reading

not genuine, some editions having indeed

does not mean

was

makes unclean

but simply

UNDO.
is

unclean

Moreover,
1

Jose

become unclean only by direct contact

with a corpse, the emphasis being on NrVCQ. If, however, one touches
a thing or another person that had become unclean by contact with a corpse,
he does not become unclean, because he did not come in direct contact
decision probably

that one can

with the corpse.

62

The

seek to harmonize Jose s decision with

later talmudic teachers

the later teachings of the Halakah.

They therefore modify the meaning

and explain it so as to agree with the later
But the original meaning of the term
teachings of the accepted Halakah.
VJ3
2~lpH, which is apparently identical with the phrase
of the term

lIpHU

2"1pH,

Q"IN

2")p"n2

niNELD V3D2

in

was

Sifra,

altogether different from the meaning given

To harmonize Jose s decision with the

Halakah, one could interpret it to mean that only
certain kinds of l"lpH2 2"lpH are clean.
That is to say, Jose declared

to

it

in the talmudic discussion.

later teachings of the

that not everything that has been

in

a person that touches

Jose, then,

stone, and

wood.

it

unclean.

contact with a

meant

corpse can
to

make

exclude earth,

His decision accordingly was directed against an older

that one who touches wood, stone, or earth that

Halakah which declared

has become defiled by contact with a corpse, becomes unclean.

old

Halakah seems

to be expressed in the

(Schechter, Documents ofJewish Sectaries,

however, Ginzberg

It

then,

is

vol. I, p. 12, lines

Work

15-17). Compare,

seems, however, more probable that Jose

mp Hi

another person

Such an

Fragments of a Zadokite

ingenious explanation of this passage in the Monats-

1912, pp. 560-61).

declared every kind of

schrift,

who had become

3*1

pH

clean,

even a person

who

touches

by contact with a corpse. Jose,

against the later teachings of the Halakah that a HD NDD becomes
X and can make others unclean. See below, note 64.
defiled

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

74

3~ipH, one who touches a person who has become

unclean by contact with a corpse, also becomes unclean,

NfPmNID, according to the Law. They must have derived

their opinion either from a literal interpretation of the
passage in

Num.

Talmud

in the

19. 22,

what

or,

(ibid.)

Lev.

NDB NDDH

in

5. 2, NDtt

13

yr T^N

more

is

wn

bs, as stated

passage
literally

means one who touches any object that

i>33

from the

likely,

T^s* i?a: is,

in

is

which

unclean.

This apparently includes one who touches an object which

has become unclean through contact with a corpse. This
seems to me to have been the scriptural basis for their

But Jose interpreted

theory.

ently, so that he

3npH3

3"ipH,

Indeed,
Sifra,

rrn

passage

differ

and declaring such a one as clean.

find these two opposing views preserved

we

Hobak, XII,
IM

this scriptural

could give his decision, permitting a

ed.

w&nn

rtan

3N pN^

h"r\

"131

Weiss 22

.NED

n^prn

"nn

w HINDU

2"n

NX

There we read

d.

yjron

HUN

HNDlUn

D3

yjn

DTN

D.T^

in

as follows

T.?N

ON

plHVD l?N HD HDH3

Or if a person touches any unclean thing (Lev. 5. 2).

The former teachers said
One might argue [from the
:

"

expression

any unclean thing

that even

if

"]

a person has

touched anything that had come into contact with unclean

things, he should also be [considered unclean and conse
quently] subject to the law mentioned in this passage.

The

scriptural text teaches

"

mentioning]

whether

it

us, therefore, [by specifically

be a carcase of an unclean beast, or

a carcase of unclean cattle, or the carcase of unclean creeping

things"

that only these specific objects

causes of uncleanness [can

unclean], but

it

by

which are

their contact

make

excludes anything else which

original cause of uncleanness.

is

original

man

not an

The term h^ one might

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

argue

points to an actual opinion held

which the Midrash seeks to

refute.

D^l^N^n D Opf here expressed

is

63

viz.

Jose,

by the teachers before

We

disputed with him.

people,

the view of the

view of

identical with the

by ^W

possible opinion introduced

actually held

by some

xn^n nipH becomes

that only

As

75

unclean, the

by those who

Jose, or

name

the

im

and limited by the following special terms

p>

Accordingly we have

first

time the application of the rule of vbx fen

n.

And

if

we

in this instance for the

S.

by

64

is

The

D OlBWin D

Horowitz
seems

if it

is

doubtful,

64

Jose or

JpT is also

assumed by Professor

I.

as quoted

Levy

in Sifre Zutta, Breslau, 1910, p. 7, note 5.

to

me

that the passage

not of the original Midrash of the D

For,

/i>3

identity of Jose s decision with the one quoted in Sifra in the

of the

It

ps* trial

include the passage pinviD I^N no in

the original Midrash, which however

i3

nDra nfem

rrn

so as to include only the latter or such as are exactly

them.

name

defined

^33, is

like

D*)23^

in Sifra

This interpretation says

of the D OVtf&nn D opr.

that the meaning of the general term KED

IN

new

can, therefore, ascertain the

method used by Jose from the interpretation given

in

view

the

to

refers

nNDIDH JTQN
315?N"in

pirTPO

fill?

D Op), but a

1>N

TO

later addition.

had been a part of the Midrash of the older teachers, then R. Akiba s
it would not have added
anything and would have

Midrash which follows

been entirely superfluous.

The original Midrash of the older teachers
closed with the words
The older teachers inter
,
,
pT^

D^n

b"T\.

preted this scriptural passage as a D121

7?3, to mean only what

expressly mentioned in the special term tT)D2^ H?3 fc^N

excluded even nNEIttn JTQK.

To

according to which only what

is

however,

we

include the passage

this

pN. They
R. Akiba added another Midrash

not an

HNDIDH

the original Midrash of the older teachers,

nNDIDn niUN

is

used by them

sources of uncleanness
usually to
op.

cit.,

designate

in

and not
certain

is

^32

nKDlEH 3N

HUN

fJIP

is

excluded.

plWO

we must assume

degree of uncleanness

in

term

the original

which
(see

If,

HD

that the

a narrow sense to designate

in the technical sense in

lfK

it is

used

Horowitz,

p. 8).

That the

DWfcOn

D\Dpt

excluded

even

so-called

HKDIDn

JTl-N

is

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

76
the

D\Dic\x-\n

n^pr

the rule

must have considered the following passage

another
and formulated

bn yv
IN as
man pya K!?N p nns*

DiK nNBiB

IE>N

i>b

\\*

fei

&,

c-iai

and accord

ingly included other nNElDn nns* which are like WVID.

From
first

a comparison of the explanation given to Jose s

decision in

reached by

^31

tnai

Abodah

zarah 37 a with Hullin 66 a

we

the decision declaring NVEp tat as clean was

learn that

5>5>3

by means of applying the rule

to include D12n pjD (see Rashi Ab. zarah,
also

Jose

ad loc., and Tosfot Yomtob to Eduyot VII, 8). In regard

it is hard to find
to the decision about the KTQBB u
npB>D,

out by what means Jose derived this from the Scriptures,

as

we

are not quite sure as to the exact

decision.

Even the

opinions regarding

Talmudic teachers held

later

its

meaning.

decision declared these

meaning of

different

According to Rab, Jose s

liquids altogether clean

and not

subject to defilement, 55TO pi, while according to

Samuel

com

the decision was merely that these liquids cannot

municate to others their defilement, but

become

Rab

this

defiled, D^ntf HNDID NEttfe

pn

in

themselves

may

Pesahim 17 a).
be more plausible

(see

explanation seems, however, to

and warranted by the plain sense of the word pi which

means, simply, C ftE pi. In this case we may safely assume
that Jose arrived at

this decision also

by means

of the

conceded even by Rabed in his commentary on Sifra, ad loc. (This shows

that he felt the difficulty of finding a difference between their Midrash and
the Midrash of R. Akiba.) Rabed, however, assumes that the older teachers
decided this only with regard to punishment for entering the sanctuary in

such a state of uncleanness,

BHpO

WZ

Rabed

^V

DH^V
But

herein.

quoted by Horowitz, follows

the older teachers made such a distinction.

pl"n

it

is

|W.

Levy, as

very unlikely that

person was considered

unclean he would have been punished for entering the sanctuary in his
If he was not to be punished for entering the
state of uncleanness.
sanctuary, that meant he

was not

If a

at all unclean.

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

method of using the

D121

where the defilement

Ni^

^m

which

nnc

T^K

drinkable

is

721

npcr

is

is

n.

Lev.

in

spoken

Jose saw

which

or

For

rule.

of liquids

77

rw

the words

24,

said

is

of, it

TJ-

drunk out of a vessel

in

which qualifies and limits the

a limiting special term,
general term, np ^D 731, and excludes from the latter the
D")2,

tfTQBtD

npsrio

which

out of a vessel

In

Shemini, IX, Weiss 55

nno

nppD.

is

not drinkable

the

or

not drunk

is

same way Eliezer

(in

a) applies this principle to

Sifra,

exclude

65

Thus we

from

find that Jose derived all his decisions

the Scripture by means of interpretations, and that these

These
interpretations were according to new methods.
new methods, however, were rejected by his contemporaries,
because they were novel. The teachers of the next genera
tion

and possibly even some of

his colleagues, respecting the

authority of Jose, accepted his decisions but hesitated to

recognize the validity of the

new

rule of Lnai 773

which

Since they did not accept this method they

could not teach these decisions together with the scriptural

Jose used.

65

It is

possible that in the saying of R. Eliezer, the representative of

we have the same decision which was given b} Jose.

Jose, however, directed his decision to a certain kind of undrinkable liquid,

the older Halakah,

NTDOD
ilp ^ D, while the older Halakah as represented by R. Eliezer
formulated the same decision in a general way, so as to apply it to all
undrinkable liquids, HHD PIp^D.
Accordingly, the statement of Rab

the

(Pesahim 173) that Jose held that there was no

subject liquids to uncleanness,

biblical

law which would

iTnnn fD pP&D? HKDID pN

"ODp,

is

not

Jose excluded only undrinkable liquids from these laws. It is

very unlikely that as early as the time of Jose there was a rabbinical law
correct.

declaring liquids subject to uncleanness,

be noticed that there

which made

more

it

is

difficult to

ascertain the real

so as the later teachers sought to

rulings about liquids.

pl"n?0

much confusion about

p-plPDp iTTU.
the laws of pp^

meaning of Jose

harmonize

it

It

should

D HND1D,

s decision,

the

with the later halakic

78

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

proofs given to

them by

therefore

They

merely
mentioned them as decisions given by Jose. They would
not even teach them in Hebrew, the language in which
they taught all their Halakot connected with the Scripture
in

Jose.

They formulated them

Midrash-form.

in the

Aramaic

language, then already popular, just as they would mention

decisions given

by secular

popular customs

refer to

authorities, or just as they

in

the language of the people,

rather than in the language of the school. 66

For

this reason

they introduced these Halakot with the formula

declared

Jose

or

these decisions;

stated

i.

e.

Jose

is

07

Yjjn,

the authority for

and they properly called him tfnp

Jose the Permitter

On

would

DV,

the same principle and in the

same manner, the

teachers dealt with another decision given

by Jose ben

Joezer and his colleague Jose ben Johanan of Jerusalem,

viz. that glassware is subject to the laws of Levitical

An

uncleanness.

old tradition reports that the two Joses

decreed that the laws of uncleanness apply to glassware,

3
66

i>y

nxEitt

nw

In the Midrash form,

when

There

is

no reason

the Halakah forms a sort of a

commentary

(Shabbat 15

a).

on the Hebrew text, the use of the Hebrew language especially recommended
itself.

In

many

cases the

comment consisted merely

in

emphasizing the

important words in the text, or in calling attention to a peculiar construction

or to a special form. All these peculiarities of the Midrash would have

made it very difficult to use another language than Hebrew. In this manner
Hebrew remained the D TOSH ftfSVj the language of the school. It con
tinued to be used for teaching Halakah even when the latter was separated
from the

Hebrew

text

of the Scriptures and taught

independently

in

Mishnah-form.
67

See above, note 30. There is no doubt that the introductory formula
added by a later teacher. It may be that in the case of Jose,
the case of Akabiah (see above, note 58) the later teacher who added

YVH was
as in

meant to suggest by it that Jose had a tradition on which he

based his decisions, so that he was not the author or innovator of the same.
this formula

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

doubt the genuineness of

to

this report in the

Talmud, nor are there any reasons

4
Graetz, Gesclnchte, III p. 707,
,

glassware to Simon

is

The
b.

Joezer.

theory solely on the passage in p. Ketubbot, VIII, n, 32

Simon

of

b.

W HN^D

JVDIST

Shetah,

reason for this

inclined to ascribe this decree about

Shetah and not to Jose

b.

Babylonian

for ascribing this decree

to other authors as Graetz has done. 68

68

79

fpnn Kim.

c,

He

bases his

where it is said
The correctness

is questioned by the Talmud on the ground that it conflicts

with another reliable report, which ascribes this decree to the two Joses.
The explanation is then offered that both reports are correct. The decree was

of this statement

first issued by the two Joses, but was subsequently forgotten or

neglected,
and then revived and reintroduced by Simon b. Shetah. This talmudic

be correct.

may

explanation

The hesitancy on

may have

his decree

He

which he based

necessitated another formal decree or a confirmatory

Simon

act in the days of

other

the part of the

teachers, Jose s colleagues, to accept the interpretation on

b.

Shetah.

Graetz, however, evidently does not

Talmud as a poor attempt

harmonize these two conflicting reports. However, granted that this
explanation is merely a harmonization, we can reject the explanation but

think so.

discards this explanation of the

to

not the objection raised by the Talmud.

ignoring

There

is

no reason whatever

for

the other reports which ascribe the decree to the two Joses

all

and accepting this one which ascribes it to Simon b. Shetah. This is all
the more incorrect as it is apparent that this one report is based on
a mistake.
Simon b. Shetah decreed against metal-ware, ni^Hto V3
(Shabbat 14 b, comp. Graetz, I.e., pp. 706, 708). In a report about this
decree of Simon some one probably made the mistake of substituting
JT313T *^3 for JTlSnE) *hl. R. Jonah s saying cited there in the Talmud
(p.

Ketubbot,

/.

is

c.)

accordingly another answer to the question raised

there about the two conflicting reports.

It is

introduced for the purpose

of correcting the mistake in the one report, and telling us that

decreed only against metal-ware

The decree

JTOnD v3 and

Simon

not against JVDlwT

v3.

came from the two Joses as

Pesahim 27 d, and b. Shabbat 15 a.

against the latter, then, really

reported repeatedly

in p.

Shabbat

I,

3 d,

p.

assuming that the Babylonian Talmud does not

contain correct information about this subject, and that the utterance of an
Graetz

is

Amora Zeera
contrary

is

wrong
is

true.

mistaken in the Babylonian Talmud for a Baraita. The

In the Palestinian
This report is an older Baraita.

Talmud, however,
are
as

many such

if

in

this Baraita is

mentioned by the Amora Zeera, as there

Amoraim and appearing

instances of Baraitot being quoted by

they were the sayings of the Amoraim (see Frankel, Mebo ha-Jentshalmi,

pp. 26-7).

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

80

was

correctly given by Johanan, in the name

Simon ben Lakish) that glass is made of sand and is
therefore the same as any other earthen vessel, D~in ^3
The Talmud, discussing this explanation of
(ibid., 15 b).

decision

(as

is

of

Simon ben Lakish.

raises the following question

ware has been declared

sand
it

like D~n

v3 because being made

of

then

is

belongs to the class of earthen vessels,

it

If glass

not considered by the Halakah as

D"in

In the discussion that follows, the

^3

why

in all respects

Talmud

(ibid.) finds

answering this question. We are not concerned

with the answer given in the Talmud, because it is merely
difficulties in

an unsuccessful attempt to harmonize the decision of Jose

with later practice. The significant thing for us is that
this question

was

It indicates that the

raised.

Amoraim

understanding the decision, although

the Babylonian Talmud about this report it is

difficulty in

experienced
From the discussion
evident that they

in

were well informed about

this case.

Objections arc raised

against part of this tradition, viz. the report about the decree of

They show

D^J/H ptf

that there

The two

the T\y& D OlEfcjn J331.

is

?y JINDID

another report which ascribes

reports are, however, harmonized.

it

to

But

they could not find any contradictory report about the decree against

rrast ^3.
The reading rP313T
r\2& D*01ECH

Hamaor

is

given in regard to
of the

TV?

?Jfl

From

loc.

313T

v3

DWJH pm

the report of the activity of the

in

it is

p3"l

See Zerahiah Halevi

in

the fact that no answer or solution

is

the older codices.

missing in

Shabbat, ad

to

^3

also evident that the report about the act

only mentioned the decree of

pN

argument, that this institution presupposes the common use of

glassware among the people, a practice which could not have been the case
in the time of the two Joses, is rather weak.
Although the great majority
Graetz

of the people

yet there

were

may

not have lived in luxury in the time of the two Joses,

at least

some

luxury of using glassware.

rich people
It

was

who

could and did indulge in the

just at the first introduction of these

some rich people that the question about their status in

regard to the laws of cleanness came up. The teachers then declared that
they were subject to the laws of uncleanness.
vessels to Judea by

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

8r

they were aware of the basis upon which Jose founded his

To

decision.

add the following question which

in

point

Talmud we may
disclose another weak

this question raised in the

will

the explanation of the decision.

of the two Joses was reached

If this decision

interpreting the biblical

by

term Din ^3 so as to include glassware (because it is made

of sand) then their decision was in reality a biblical law,
as

no distinction can be made between vessels of clay and

vessels of sand, both being earthen vessels.

this decision ascribed to the

as an arbitrary decree, a

Why then

was

two Joses and characterized

HTtt ?
The following ex

mere

planation will give the answer to both questions mentioned

above and

remove the

will

talmudic teachers

in

difficulties

understanding

his colleague interpreted the biblical

made

a vessel

of

included in

it

respects like

D^n

experienced by the
Jose and

this decision.

term Din

*i>3

mean

to

any kind of earth, and, consequently, he

TV313T
*73.

^3 which he indeed considered

The younger

teachers, however,

in all

would

not accept the broad definition given by Jose to the term

D~in

^3 so

they refused to follow Jose

D"in

^3

in all respects.

some of
mnn.

in

also.

For

this reason

considering glassware like

Out of

respect for the two Joses,

their contemporaries or successors accepted the

decision, but designated

^3

as to include JV313T

it

merely as a rabbinical decree,

They would therefore apply to

TV313T

^3 only

certain of the laws of uncleanness that pertained to earthen

vessels,

D*m

^3.

These other teachers would therefore not

teach this decision in the Midrash-form together with the

passage
teach

it

D~in *fe

5>31,

as Jose no

doubt

did.

They would

as an independent Halakah, as a rabbinical law

that has no scriptural basis but rested merely

upon the

authority of the two teachers.

L.

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

82

The motive

for accepting

may be

accepting his proof,

entertained

by the younger

a teacher

decision without

found either

in

the respect

teachers for the author of the

decision, or in their belief, that the author of the decision

was

in possession of

either case they

a tradition

had no

unknown

to them. 69

In

hesitancy in rejecting the proofs

which they considered unconvincing or too novel. Whatever

their motives,

it is

certain that the

younger contemporaries

of Jose or his successors accepted his decisions and taught

them

in his

name although without

his proofs for

The latter they rejected, because they

his new methods of interpretation.
This

attitude,

common among

its

despite

did not approve of

inconsistency,

the teachers of the Halakah. 70

striking instance of this

practice

is

them.

to be

was

quite

The most

found in the

story of Hillel and the Bene Batyra (Yerush. Pesahim 33 a).

In this account
scriptural proofs

we

are told that all the arguments

advanced by Hillel

in

and

favour of the decision

that the Passover sacrifice should set aside the Sabbath

were rejected by the Bene Batyra. although Hillel had

learned all or most of these proofs and interpretations

from
last,

But when, at
his teachers Shemaiah and Abtalion.
he told them that he had received the decision itself

from Shemaiah and Abtalion, they forthwith accepted the

69

Compare the idea expressed

in

the saying:

DTQ

iT3?n rUTH

"p

IO^DHI o>wn ncyi nirm i, often used to explain

the acts of the teachers who instituted new laws (p. Shebiit 33 b and
It is possible that such an idea was conceived in very
p. Ketubbot 32 c).

a^pfion run

*?y

early times, and possibly

Jose
70

it was such a view that

guided the successors of
acceptance of his decisions.
DJO !?3pJ T\J?n BX (M. Yebamot
Compare the phrase nHBTI
p"6

in their

VIII, 3 and M. Keritot III, 9) which clearly shows that they were ready
to accept a Halakah although rejecting the proof offered for that Halakah.

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

.same.

ny u

tav

p^O3K1 rvyEE D

vb DIM bs
*p

TO>

enm aw

;r6

We

^v

fro*

83

"IDNB>.

we may be

*JK

to say the

is,

Whatever we may think of the

doubtful.

very

least,

by

need not discuss

the historicity of this report, a point which

account,

iTnp

sure that

its

author pictured accurately

the attitude which teachers usually assumed towards the

name

decisions given in the

from

this

account that

of older teachers.

author certainly believed that

its

teachers or authorities like the

have been) were

may
given

in the

name

evident

It is

Bene Batyra (whoever they

in the habit of

accepting decisions

of a departed teacher, even in cases

where they would refuse to accept the proofs

decisions also given in the

name

of that teacher.

71

for

the

Whether

took place in the case of Hillel and the Bene

of minor importance.
Accordingly, we learn

this actually

Batyra is
from this report that
certain teachers

who

in

the time

of Hillel

raised objections to the

there were

new methods

own

which Hillel had acquired from the great exegetes

Shemaiah and Abtalion.
However, the
Cpfertt,

same

teachers would not hesitate to accept a practical decision

which
71

Hillel reported in the

Compare Bassfreund

(op.

cit.,

name

p. 19,

of these

note

3).

two

authorities.

All the difficulties which

removed by our explanation. Most likely Hillel

had learned from Shemaiah and Abtalion not only the decision but also all
he finds

in this story are

the interpretations which he offered as arguments in favour of the same.

He

gave these interpretations in the name of his teachers. The Bene

interpretations, because they
It
objected to the new methods developed by Shemaiah and Abtalion.
also

Batyra, however, refused to accept these

was

their opposition to these

new methods

of interpretation

which kept

them from attending the schools of Shemaiah and Abtalion, and not
their negligence, as one might judge from Hillel s reputed remark
JlvXy
:

inn ^TH ^

DD2W

tibw D33

nnW.

teachers, however, led them to accept

would not accept their proofs.

Their respect for these great

their decision, even though they

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

84

That which happened

in the time of Jose ben

in

the time of Hillel also happened

When

Joezer.

of interpretation for the

first

he used new methods

time, his colleagues hesitated

although they did accept some of the

decisions which he derived from the Scripture by means

to

follow him,

of these

new methods.

We can easily understand

inconsistent as

may

it

the reason for such an attitude,

appear.

To

a decision implied approval of the

proof was obtained.

application of these
of telling

accept the proof for

method by which

that

This would open the door to further

new methods,

so that there was no

what decisions might be thus arrived

at.

way

Against

danger the teachers attempted to guard themselves,

but they never went so far as to decide, in any practical
this

case, against the authority of an older teacher.

For

this

reason they would often accept the decision but reject the
proofs.

In the above,

making

we have

digressed for the purpose of

clear that difference of opinion concerning

methods

of interpretation prompted the teachers to sometimes divorce

a Halakah from the scriptural proof.

We

have also seen

that the three oldest Halakot preserved in Mishnah-form,

namely, the three decisions of Jose, owed their present form

to this very reason. They were expressed in Mishnah-form

by Jose

s disciples

who

felt

constrained to reject the proofs

advanced by Jose because of the novelty of

his

methods of

interpretation.

Accordingly,

it

Mishnah-form was

may
first

be stated with certainty that the

used to teach those customs and

practices which originated during the time when there was

no official activity of the teachers. Having no scriptural
basis,

they could not be taught

in

connexion with

the-

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

in

i.e.

Scripture,

Mid rash-form.

the

was further used to

decisions which

those

teach

85

The Mishnah-form
traditional

some teachers attempted

and

laws

to derive from

Scripture by means of new methods of interpretation.

While some of their contemporaries or disciples accepted
the new methods, and therefore taught these decisions in

the Mid rash- form, others, and by far the majority, rejecting
the

new methods, accepted only

Finding no

the decisions.

such laws

convincing proofs for

in

the Bible, they taught

them independently of scriptural proof, i.e. in the Mishnahform. These two motives for teaching Halakot in the
Mishnah-form are really one and the same. Whether no
midrashic proof could be found for a decision, or whether

deemed unconvincing,
the Mishnah-form was the same the

the midrashic proof suggested was

the

motive

for

absence of a sound Midrash.

To

this first

motive there soon were added other motives

for the use of the Mishnah-form.

Certain considerations

in the course of time urged the teachers to extend

even to such

Halakot as

scriptural proofs

with the

had,

in

their

opinion,

and could well be taught

Scripture

in

the

its

Midrash-form.

in

use

good

connexion

These other

motives and considerations arose from the disputes between

the Sadducees and Pharisees.

They became

stronger and
the
with
breach
between
the two
ever-widening
stronger
factions.

As

the

dispute

between the parties progressed, the

antagonism between them naturally became sharper. Each

party came to assume a distinctive attitude towards the

Law, and they consistently worked out their respective lines

The Pharisees came to recognize

of attack and defence.

the binding character of the traditional law, na byiw

mm,

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

86

and demanded that

be considered of equal authority

The Sadducees, on the other hand,

it

with the written Law.

became more outspoken

in their denial that

the traditional

law possessed absolute authority. These differences had

their effect upon the forms used in teaching the Halakah.
As we have seen above, the Midrash was used for the
purpose of grafting new decisions and practices upon the
words of the written law, when the latter only was con
sidered the sole authority binding upon the people.

give sanction to any decision

necessary to find for

Book of

the

it

some

Law and

or traditional law,

it

To
was

indication in the authoritative

thus to present

As
Law and

it

contained

as

or implied in the written Law.

soon as Tradition was

raised to the rank of the

thus recognized as an

independent authority parallel to the written Law, there

was no longer that urgent need of connecting each and
every Halakah with the words of the written Law in the

form of the Midrash.

tradition

sented

halakic

was now considered by the

by

decision based
teachers,

on a

and repre

them, to be just as authoritative as one derived

from the written Torah by means of an interpretation or

Midrash. The Halakah as traditional law could now stand
without the support of a scriptural basis, and could there
fore be taught independently in the Mishnah-form.
Not

only was there no more need for teaching all the Halakot
together with the written Law in the Midrash form, but
there were also sufficient reasons for the Pharisaic teachers
to teach

Halakah as

to connect the

traditional law without even attempting

same with the written Law.

doing, they emphasized

that

is,

For, in so

their belief in the twin-law

nnin TIP;

the belief that there were two equal sources

religious teaching,

of

one the written Torah and the other

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

the unwritten Oral
alike,

and that one

87

Law, both of which must be studied

is

as important as the other.

Of course

they continued to develop the Midrash method for the

purpose of deriving new Halakot from the one source

the written

Law.

The Halakot

thus

derived from the

Scriptures were taught together with the

Midrash-form.

latter,

in

the

In this way, they could well continue to

use the Midrash-form even after the Mishnah-form was

adopted.

They were apprehensive only

of

using

the

Midrash-form exclusively, because such an exclusive use

might reflect upon their theory of an authoritative Oral

Law.

The very endeavour

the written

meant

to connect all

Law by means

of the

Halakot with

Midrash would have

there was

acknowledge
only one Law,
namely, the one contained in the Book. They would
thus have conceded to the Sadducees the disputed point
to

that

that the traditional law,

authority

with

the

na

written

the parallel use of both

min, was not of equal

Law, arms? mm.
By

i>y3B>

forms,

Midrash and

they showed that they treated both sources

teaching in

Mishnah,
alike.

By

Mishnah-form even such Halakot as could

be derived from

the written

Law and

taught

in

the

Midrash-form, they showed that they were not very

anxious to find scriptural support for each Halakah. This
was a strong expression of their belief in the equal authority
of the two Torot, a belief that

made

it

of little consequence

whether a Halakah was taught in the Midrash-form, as

derived from the written Law, or in the Mishnah-form, as
a traditional law.

Furthermore, the exclusive use of the Midrash-form

threatened to endanger the authority and the teachings of
the Pharisees. These apprehensions caused the Pharisaic

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

88

make more

teachers to

and

some

in

extensive use of the Mishnah-form

cases even to prefer the

same

to the Midrash-

form.

For

in the

Midrash-form as based on the Scripture would have

to give all the halakic teachings of the Pharisees

exposed these teachings to the attack of the Sadducees.

As we have seen above, the hesitancy on the part of some
teachers to recognize the validity of the

new

interpretations

offered in support of certain decisions led to their teaching

such decisions in Mishnah-form.

The new

rules

and methods

gradually found recognition among the Pharisaic teachers,

who would admit the validity of interpretations derived by

means of these new methods.

Thus they were able

to

But among
the Sadducees the objection to these new methods was
very strong and they absolutely denied their validity. If
furnish a Midrash for almost every Halakah.

the Pharisees arrived at a certain decision by means of

a new interpretation, the Sadducees could always dispute

that decision

by

refuting the scriptural proof offered for

it.

was possible for them to argue that the Pharisaic inter

pretation was unwarranted and that the scriptural passage
It

did not

mean what

the Pharisees tried to read into

it.

The

Pharisees feared that such arguments against their teachings

by the Sadducees might have a detrimental effect

young students and draw them away from the

raised

upon the

Pharisaic teachings.

some

The

Pharisees were well aware that

of their interpretations were rather forced, and that

arguments against these interpretations were

Wherever possible, the Pharisees were, therefore,

their opponents

sound.

anxious to avoid such disputes, or to prevent their pupils

from entering into them. The easiest way to avoid these
disputes concerning the validity of the scriptural proofs for

the Pharisaic teachings, was to avoid the mention of

any

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

such doubtful scriptural proofs at

Mishnah rather than Midrash.

78

It

should be noticed that

72

all,

that

89
to say, to use

is

After the Pharisaic teachers

was only with the younger students

it

that

the teachers pursued this pedagogical method of suppressing scriptural

proofs, when these were not quite perfect, and of teaching the Halakot in

Mishnah-form without any proof whatsoever. They considered it necessary

prevent the young students from being shaken

to take this precaution to

and from doubting the authority of the traditional

in their belief in tradition

To

advanced students, however, they would unhesitatingly

communicate all the scriptural proofs or even artificial supports which they
law.

the

had for their teachings. Hence among the advanced students the use of the
Midrash-form was prevalent (see above, note 3).

A few talmudic sayings may be cited here to prove that it was the
tendency among the teachers to withhold from the students while young
the arguments and reasons for the laws and to keep them from disputes with
their opponents.

Simon

b.

Halafta says

5P|M D ODp

DTD^niW rWl

Dmnya IBTO frnw rmn nnn

rrnn ni onb rta

Dn^si?

As long

young hide from them [some] words of the Torah. When

more mature and advanced reveal to them the secrets of the Torah

as the pupils are

they are
(p.

Abodah zarah

pBO

D1K

"OH

II,

<JBb

41 d).
tikx

Simon

min

b.

"im

Johai says

You

"pxy

HlttH

PpB^

pK

are not permitted to enter into

a deep discussion of the words of the Torah except in the presence of pious

and good people

(ibid.}.

are evidently meant people

of the traditional law.

of Simon

b.

Halafta and

at the

same purpose,

pious and good people

Simon

fHKO D1S

"02

follow the Rabbis and accept the teachings

According

connexion between them.

aim

By
who

b.

to the

Gemara

(ibid. }

Johai go together.

the two sayings

There

is

a subtle

This connexion consists in the fact that both

viz.

not to give the opponents of the Rabbis and

the traditional law any opportunity to attack the traditional law

the arguments or proofs brought for the same by the Rabbis.

by refuting

We see from these two sayings that even as late as the middle of the
second century c. E., when the followers of the Sadducean doctrines were
no more so strong, neither in numbers nor in influence, the Rabbis were still
anxious to avoid disputes with them, and would therefore not tell the young
pupils all their arguments and reasons for the laws, lest the opponents

might refute them and upset the

saying of Jose

b. Halafta, nn"6

beliefs of the

pmS>

young

DIpD

unn

pupils.
i>K,

Compare the

M. Parah

III, 3,

and see below, note 80.

In the days of the earlier teachers when the influence of the Sadducees
and their followers was stronger, this tendency among the teachers of the
traditional law, to keep the young students from entering into discussions

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

90

agreed upon deriving a certain Halakah from a given passage,

they preferred to teach that Halakah in an independent form

without citing passage or interpretation. Such a Halakah

or decision could then be received in good faith by the
students

who

The

followed the Pharisees.

pupils would

rely on the authority of the teachers believing that they

were in possession of valid proofs for their Halakot, although

they did not mention them. On the other hand, the

Sadducees could never successfully refute the Halakot thus
The saying

with the Sadducees, must of course have been stronger.

D^DDH

R. Eliezer:

1^n

p2

^"D

DU^Hl jWnn

of

0^31 1JB

fO

(Berakot 17 b), probably expresses this tendency to make the young pupils
study more the traditional law at the feet of the teachers, and keep them

away from studying

the scriptural proofs and the arguments for the tradi

A very

striking illustration of this tendency among the earlier

found in the report of a conversation between Ishmael and
R. Joshua b. Hananiah. Ishmael asks R. Joshua to tell him the reason for

tional laws.

teachers

is

a certain rabbinical law.

Joshua, apparently unwilling to state the real

This does not satisfy Ishmael, and

reason, gives him an evasive answer.

he persists

in

Joshua, instead of replying,

demanding an explanation.

simply ignores the question, drops the subject, and begins to discuss another

The Gemara (35 a) reports further that

subject (M. Abodah zarah II, 5).
Joshua actually commanded Ishmael to stop asking questions about this Law.

3^6

He

plainly told him,

lips

and be not so anxious

tron

^N1 1T3

It

Close your

TTIBG? p1T!

The Gemara then gives the following

harsh rejoinder. It was a rule with the teachers

to argue

explanation for this rather

in Palestine not to give a reason for a

new law

until at least

one year

after

was decreed. They feared that some people, not approving of the reason,
would disregard and treat lightly the law itself: K$n BO N
ND^H
These words are significant. There was only
PQ *Mti^ Tlfcfl

it

WK

b"D.

one

class of people

these

who

were the followers

might disapprove the reasons of the Rabbis, and

Ishmael must have been
of Sadducean doctrines.

a very young student at that time (see Midrash Shir

want

did not
that
to

to give

him the reason

some of the opponents

young Ishmael

Joshua

for this

new

r. I,

2},

and R. Joshua

rabbinical law, for fear

of the traditional law might be able to prove

that the reason for this

remark against those

who

law, to be cited below, note 78.)

law was

insufficient.

(Compare

question the authority of the traditional

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

Not knowing on what

taught.

91

what

basis they rested or

were unable to
proofs the Pharisees offered for them, they
on
these Pharisaic
attacks
Their
them.
argue concerning
teachings would then consist of mere negations without the
As mere negations are not con
force of strong argument.
vincing, such attacks

not greatly

The
by

harm

on the part of the Sadducees could

the Pharisaic followers.

teachers, all

of the Pharisaic party, were influenced

another consideration.

still

The tendency

to teach

only

in Midrash-form, showing that all the religious teachings

were lodged in the written Torah, threatened to take away

from the Pharisaic teachers their prestige and to lend support
to the claim of the

bins*

can,

i.e.

Sadducees that there was no need of the

the teachers of the Pharisaic party.

In the

between John Hyrcanus and

the Pharisees (Kiddushin 66 a) we are told that the former,
at first, hesitated to persecute the folB" eon of the Pharisaic
report about the

conflict

party because he considered them indispensable as teachers

He is said to have asked rvfyy Nnn no min
of the Law.

What

become

will

teachers

of the

Torah

without the Pharisaic

But his Sadducean adviser, who urged the per

him ppn nmici nana nn

secution of the Pharisees, told

TO^i N^
even

liW>

if

73 It
all

b rwt,

it

makes very

its

little

details or not.

the Pharisees that they

of the Torah.

difference
It

are

whether

this story

reflects the idea of the

remain,,

is

historically true

Sadducees that the

dispensed with, and also the insistence of

were absolutely necessary

The story mirrors

As we

Torah would

killed. 73

Also that any one

because the Pharisees were not the only

Pharisaic teachers could be

tained.

that the

the Pharisees would be

could study

in

rrenn

for the

preservation

for us the fears that the Pharisees enter

concerned merely with the motives that prompted

make the change in the form of their teaching,

the Pharisaic teachers to

this story

may be

taken as an unconscious but accurate description of the

consideration which could have

moved them.

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

92

Law.

teachers of the

If,

then, all the teachings

and the

Halakot were represented as derived from the Torah by

means of interpretation, as is done in the Midrash-form,

Sadducees would appear justified. There

would, indeed, be no need of the ^IfW D3n,of the Pharisaic
party. Any one else could likewise interpret the law correctly

this claim of the

and derive from

for a

it

all

the Halakot that are implied therein,

thorough understanding of the text of the written

Law was

certainly not limited to the Pharisees.

aim of the Pharisees to

assert their authority

Thus the

and to show

that they were absolutely necessary for the perpetuation of

made it desirable for them to use

Even if there had been no objections

the religious teachings

the Mishnah-form.
to their

new methods and even

they had been able to

if

find scriptural proofs for all their decisions, they neverthe

less

thought

advisable not to insist upon connecting their

it

halakic teachings with the written

separating the two, they

If there

in

every case.

By

indispensable.

were Halakot not connected with the written Law,

one must turn

alone

Law

made themselves

were

in

for these teachings to the ^ntS*

possession of them, and

therefore be supplanted

That which was

that there

was an

by

who

Dan,

who

could

not

others.

at first but hesitatingly proposed, viz.

oral law alongside of the written

was now boldly proclaimed.

The

Law,

Pharisaic teachers were

represented as the teachers of tradition

who

received the

oral law through a chain of teachers in direct succession

from Moses.

Consequently they were the only reliable

authorities for the religious teachings.

They

insisted that

must be accepted as authoritative, with the

understanding that they either derived them from some
passage in the Scripture by sound interpretation or based

their decisions

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

93

them upon some reliable tradition. The existence of valid

Where no proofs were
proofs was always presupposed.
was implied that they were unnecessary, as the
authority of the teachers was beyond doubt. This tendency
given,

it

of the teachers to assert their authority

and to maintain

the validity of the traditional law did not have

in

any petty

its

motive

desire for party aggrandizement, but rather in

a genuine zeal for the cause, as they understood

it.

They

asserted their authority and the authority of the traditional

law for the purpose of freeing the Torah from the

literal interpretation

developing the

Law

forced

upon

it

according to

fetters

of

the Sadducees, and

by

its spirit.

All these considerations caused the teachers to

make

more and more use of the Mishnah-form, but were not

sufficient to make them abandon the Mid rash-form.
The
had many advantages. It was the older
which they had long been accustomed. It also

Midrash-form

form to

still

afforded a great help to the

memory,

can be relied upon to remind one of

as the written

all

word

the Halakot based

upon or connected with it. Consequently they used both

forms. Those Halakot which were based upon a sound
and indisputable interpretation of a

scriptural passage they

taught in the Midrash-form,

in

i.

e.

connexion with the

scriptural proofs, and they arranged them in the order of

But those Halakot for which the
the scriptural passages.
scriptural proofs

were in dispute, they taught

in the

Mishnah-

form and grouped them according to some principle of

arrangement, such as number-mishnahs or other formulas,
for the

purpose of assisting the memory.

time, the

number

form grew

in

In the course of

of the Halakot taught in the Mishnah-

proportion to the increase and the development

of the halakic teachings.

A great many of the new Halakot,

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

94

both new decisions and new applications of older laws, were

taught in the Mishnah-form by some teachers, because they
could not find satisfactory scriptural support for them.
It
be recollected that the decisions of Jose ben Joezer
were given in the Mishnah-form for the same reason.

will

The

process of development from the Midrash of the

Older Halakah to the Midrash of the Younger Halakah

was marked by constant struggles, in which the older

methods

tried to maintain themselves as long as possible.

In each generation (at least until the time of the pupils of

R. Akiba) the teachers were divided as to the acceptance

of these new methods. Some teachers clung to the older

ways and would not follow the daring applications of some

new rules of the younger teachers. With the growth and
development of the new methods, which only slowly and
gradually

won

recognition with

all

the teachers, the

number

of Halakot connected with the Scriptures by means of these

new

Such Halakot were then

exegetical rules, also grew.

taught by different teachers

teachers

who approved

of

all

in

different

forms.

Those

new methods consequently

reached by these methods as

the

considered the interpretations

sound, and the Halakot proved thereby as well founded in

the Written Law.

Accordingly, they would not hesitate

to teach these Halakot together with their proofs, that

in the

Midrash-form.

is,

But those teachers who hesitated to

accept the novel methods and the new interpretations based

who

accepted the Halakot, did so because

they considered them as traditional, or because the same
Having no sound
represented the opinion of the majority.
thereon, but

still

these Halakot, they

proofs, in their opinion, for

were com

without any
pelled to teach them in the Mishnah-form,
scriptural proof.

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

We
these

find

we

many such

cases in the tannaitic literature.

Of

Zaw XI

(ed.

mention only a few

shall

95

in Sifra,

Weiss 34 d~35 a), R. Akiba tries to prove by one of his

peculiar methods of interpretation that a Todah -offering
*

requires half a

him

said to

But R. Eleazar ben Azariah

log

of

oil.

Even

if

you should keep on arguing the

whole day with your rules about including and excluding

qualities of scriptural expressions,

The

decision that a

nwJ?
*

jfl^t?

*]b

requires half a

be accepted as a traditional law.

oil is to

mini?

roi>n

will

not listen to you.

will

"Todah "-offering

74
"UO

The emphatic

|DB>.

not listen to you

method of

^K

statement of

Eleazar b. Azariah shows that he strongly

Akiba

of

nnt*

expression

in the

iN

"log"

objected to

and that he considered

interpretation,

such proof, not merely unnecessary, but also unsound. If

Eleazar was actually in possession of a tradition for this
it

law,
74

term

It

would have been

very doubtful whether R. Eleazar

is

"O^DD

n^D/

i"12?n

Die Satzung vom Sinai

to

in Studies in

said

nt^D.5 are a late addition

merely that

teacher,

who

the words

this rule

was

b.

There

Azariah himself used the

Jewish Literature published in honour

It

p. 58).

is

more

and not the words

likely that the

of R. Eleazar.

a traditional or rabbinical law,

understood the term

^DD

WK

say 7H

apply to this law (notwithstanding Bacher,

of Dr. K. Kohler, Berlin, 1913,

"O^DD

sufficient to

rDS"!

to

mean

A later

n3/H.

Sinaitic

words

R. Eleazar

Law

added

There are many such instances where a later

teacher enlarges the term rO^H, used by an older teacher, to n^D? HD^H
because he, the later teacher, understood the term roS"! in
"O^DD, simply
il^Db.

But this interpretation, given by a later teacher, to the term

which was used by an older teacher, is not necessarily correct.
Thus, for instance, the term rD7H used in the statement of the Mishnah

this sense.
i"Opn

(M. Orlah III, 9)

(p. Orlah 6 3
ai>n

explains
(ibid.").

it

merely

to

mean simply

is

b,

interpreted by R. Johanan
b.

Kiddushin 38 b-sg

a),

a law or custom of the land

to

mean

while Samuel

H3HD

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

96

no need of scriptural proof. It is evident that this

Halakah could not be based on an indisputable traditional

is

law. 75

R. Akiba, therefore, desired to give

it

support by

from the Scriptures. He, no doubt, taught it in

proving
the Midrash-form together with the passage from which he
endeavoured to prove it. But R. Eleazar b. Azariah, who
it

did not approve the interpretation of R. Akiba, although

he accepted the Halakah, naturally taught

law, and, of course, in Mishnah-form.

Another example

is

as a traditional

it

to be found in the reasoning used

ceremony performed with the willow, mny.

This, no doubt, was an old traditional custom. Abba Saul,
to justify the

however, declared

im

the plural form

This passage,

"any

used

according to

One

willows.

to be a biblical law, deriving

it

in

from

the passage of Lev. 33. 40.

Abba

Saul,

speaks

to be taken together with the

is

it

of

two

Lulab,

and the other separately for the special ceremony with

the nmy. Abba Saul, no doubt, taught this Halakah
in the

Midrash-form as an interpretation of the passage

Lev. 23. 40.

The

in

other teachers, however, did not accept

They considered this ceremony a mere

^DD
n^n (Jerush. Shebiit 33 b), and,

this interpretation.

traditional law,

of course, taught
75

It is

np5>

it

in

the Mishnah-form.

absolutely impossible to assume that R. Akiba refused to believe

the statement of R. Eleazar b. Azariah that he had a tradition in support

of this law.

The contrary

must, therefore, be true.

R. Eleazar rejected

the Midrashic proof given by R. Akiba but accepted the law as a

rDPil,

i.

law was
that

e.

as a rabbinical or traditional law.

really an older traditional law,

It

may

though not

mere

be, however, that this

"O^DE

iT^TDp ilDSlj and

a scriptural support while R. Eleazar preferred

as a detached Halakah, i.e. in Midrash-form.
Compare the

R. Akiba tried

to give

it

to teach it
statement in Niddah 73 a in regard to another law which R. Akiba derived
from a scriptural passage, while R. Eleazar b. Azariah preferred to teach
it

as a

mere Halakah,

NroSl nHiy

J3

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

The same was

water-libation,

97

also the case with the

n

"JIDJ,

ceremony of the
which R. Akiba, by means of

a forced interpretation, tried to represent as a biblical law.

The

other teachers did not accept his interpretation.

considered

it

merely a traditional law, TD1D HPD^

and, of course, taught

the Mishnah-form.

in

it

They

rtt^fl (ibid.},

In this

manner, the same decisions were sometimes taught by some

teachers in the Midrash-form, while other teachers taught

them

in

in use

the Mishnah form. 76

Thus

the two forms continued

The

according to the preference of the teachers.

parallel usage of these two

forms continued long after

Sadduceeism had ceased to be an influential factor in the

life

of the people,

and the Pharisaic teachers had become

The Mishnah-

the only recognized teachers of the Law.

form was retained by the teachers even after the new

methods of interpretation had become generally accepted.
In spite of the fact that these
76

methods were developed to

The very frequency with which the Amoraim

Tannaim to be merely artificial

interpretations of the

NEPjn,

rabbinical

for

or

traditional

declare scriptural
supports,

WDDDN

laws (see Bacher, Die exegetisdie

Terminologie der jiidischcn Traditionsliteratur,

II,

pp.

13-14),

shows

that

must have been frequent among the Tannaim to consider some inter
pretations as mere artificial supports and not real proofs.
Otherwise, the
it

Amoraim would not have doubted

was only because they knew

the validity of a tannaitic Midrash.

that the

rejected a Midrash as unacceptable, that the

some

tannaitic interpretations

Perhaps

and

were merely

Amoraim dared

artificial

declare that

supports.

we have in the expressions KD^SQ WOOON

KfDDDK Nlpl rh n Di XrO^n an attempt at
s

rf>jn

It

Tannaim themselves had frequently

frOpl

plTtD

harmonization

on the part of the Amoraim for the purpose of explaining away the differ
ences of opinion between the older teachers. They mean to tell us that

were traditional and

which were derived from the Scriptures by means of interpretation.
However, in the case of certain traditional laws, some of the teachers sought

the older teachers always agreed as to which laws

to find

an additional

of connecting

artificial

support lor the same for the mere purpose

not because they doubted their

them with the Scriptures

traditional character.

L.

TT

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

98

such an extent that one could interpret any passage to mean

almost anything, and thus provide scriptural proofs for all
possible decisions, the teachers, having habituated
selves to the

reason for

Mishnah-form adhered to
retention

its

Mishnah-form

new

lent itself to

which gave

it

may

had

itself

in

be found

An

it.

in

them

additional

the fact that the

the meantime improved.

It

arrangement and grouping

principles of

decided advantage for systematic presenta

tion of the Halakah,

and thus made

it

a desirable form of

77

The teachers themselves having in the mean

time become accustomed to the idea of an oral law equal
teaching.

Law, now considered it unneces

proof for each and every law. They

in authority to the written

sary to seek scriptural

would occasionally even separate Halakot, based upon

sound scriptural proofs, from their Mid rash bases for the
purpose of presenting them more systematically in Mishnahform.
R. Akiba, the boldest advocate of new Midrash-

who helped

methods, was himself the one

Mishnah-form by improving

it

and

to retain the

introducing therein

the principle of topical arrangement.

Thus, out of the one form evolved our Mishnah, a

Halakot

form

collection

of

topically.

Out of the other developed our

in

independent

arranged

halakic Mid-

rashim, Mekilta, Sifra, and Sifre, which furnish a running

commentary on
77

This

the

may seem

as

Books of the Law.

if

we

accepted the view of Frankel and Weiss

about the advantages offered by the systematic arrangement of the Mishnah.

But it was only after the Mishnah had been long in use and developed its

system of grouping that it could be deemed advisable to arrange all the

Halakot in Mishnah-form, while Frankel and Weiss assume that these
advantages offered by the Mishnah in

its

the change from Midrash to Mishnah.

earlier

Mishnah did not

later stage only

This, of course,

offer these advantages.

were the cause of

is

wrong, as the

Ill

IN the above we have ascertained the date and the

reason for the introduction of the Mishnah-form, and have
traced

its

we know
its

gradual adoption by the teachers.

the motives for

first

its

use,

we may be

extensive adoption,

Now

that

and the causes

able

to

explain

for

the

strange silence of the talmudic-rabbinic sources concerning

this significant

change

form of teaching and

in the

all its

important consequences.

For
points

this
in

purpose we need only to review the main

whole process and examine them with

this

reference to their possible effect

later Rabbis.

We

had cause

for

about them.

remaining

silent

have found that the

pendent Halakot

in

theories of the

then be able to judge whether

shall

these later teachers

We

upon the

for ignoring these facts

first

and

motive for teaching inde

the Mishnah-form was the fact that

during a period of time

when

there was no official activity

of the teachers, certain customs and practices

observed by the people.

came

These customs and

to be

practices

subsequently had to be recognized and taught by the

teachers as religious ordinances, although no proof or
scriptural basis for

them

existed.

This means that certain

religious practices, considered by the later teachers as part

99

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

100
of the

handed down from Moses,

traditional law, or as

from

perhaps non- Jewish,

sources, and had no authority other than the authority
originated

in

of the people

reality

who adopted them.

unfavourably upon
in general.

other,

We

the

This, of course, reflects

authority of the traditional

law

have, furthermore, seen that the teachers

themselves could not agree in regard to the origin of

certain

laws.

artificial

While some teachers endeavoured to

supports for these laws, using even

them

terpretations for the purpose of giving

them

endorsement, others preferred to accept

laws, presumably of ancient Jewish origin.

forced

find
in

scriptural

as traditional

This disagree

ment among the earlier teachers in regard to the origin

and authority of certain laws speaks very strongly against
two fundamental theories of the

later

talmudic teachers,

One is
min, handed down from
Torah. The second is

theories that were considered almost as dogmas.

the belief in an oral law, na byiv

Moses together with the written

the belief in the validity of the laws which the wise teachers

derived from the Torah by means of their

tions, D

Mn Bm.

new

interpreta

The disagreement noted above shows

unmistakably that in earlier times these two theories were

disputed and neither was accepted by all the teachers.

For some teachers hesitated

to recognize the authoritative

character of certain laws merely on the ground that they

were

traditional.

Therefore they

felt

proofs for these laws in the Torah.

there were teachers

new

who

objected

constrained to seek

On

the other hand,

to the validity of the

interpretations by which certain laws were proved

from Scriptures.

They pinned

character of these

laws.

their faith to the traditional

Thus these

earlier

differences

between the teachers could be used as a strong argument

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

against the authority of their teachings.
actually entertained

Again, we have
the Mishnah-form

by the

IOI

This fear was

later teachers.

seen, that

one of the motives for using

on the part of the

was the desire

Pharisaic teachers to assert their authority and indispensa-

This

bility.

apparently at variance with another theory

is

of the Talmud,

the belief that from

viz.

Tannaim there was an uninterrupted

Moses

until the

succession of teachers

of the law, recognized as the chief religious authorities

whose

direct

and undisputed successors were the Pharisees.

However, the fact that the early Pharisaic teachers had

to

assert

their

authority against the opposition of the

Sadducees, shows that these teachers were new claimants

to authority.

This

fact, as

we have

seen, reveals the true

state of affairs, viz. that the priestly teachers, the Sadducees,

were

the

originally

authoritative

teachers,

whom

the

Pharisees subsequently tried to supplant.

Thus, we see that the

real conditions

which accompanied

the change from Midrash to Mishnah cast

able reflections

upon the

many

unfavour

theories and views held

can, therefore, well understand the silence of the

about this important change.

upon

facts which,

theories.

They

if

We

They

to

refer

Rabbis

did not care to dwell

misunderstood, would

hesitated

by the

Rabbis of the Talmud.

later Pharisaic teachers, the

too

reflect

on their

frequently

to

which some people might, by mis

interpretation, draw such conclusions as would shake the
foundation of the whole system of the traditional teachings. 78
circumstances from

78

That the Pharisaic teachers had such apprehensions is evident from

b. Azariah (or, according to
Rashi,

the following saying of R. Eleazar

R. Joshua

b.

Hananiah)

in

Hagigah 3 b

tf

njPBJ

o^n i^s /naiDN ^jn p:m PID

L.

HD DWBJ nnCDOSl
nrn PJN ro~n ma

mm

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

102

This was not done with the intention of suppressing historic

they indeed mentioned these

facts, as

facts.

They would

speak of them to those pupils who were prepared to see

things in their proper light, and were not disposed to
misinterpret

They deemed

them.

unwise to discuss

it

these matters before the pupils at large, fearing that there

might be among them some who could be misled by

opponents and thus arrive at erroneous conclusions. This
is

a course of conduct followed by the teachers

minn

in

regard

ppoisn

i^n p-pnD i&m pnois Wn

?nny min 10^ ^N TNH
SB pcs nns ons pro iriK (compare

ifcti pi?Dia
i:ru

also

Num.

r.

XIV,

4).

D^ID nii? iio^n

We

have

in this

saying both a defence on the part

grow and increase so as to

as
words
well as a refutation of the
warrant,
plain
arguments advanced against them that their very disagreement in many

of the Pharisaic teachers for making the Torah

contain

more than

its

questions speaks against their having reliable

accusation the Pharisaic teachers insist that

traditions.

all their

Against this

teachings

come from
name

the same source, the same leader, D31S, Moses gave them in the
of God.

We

see from this that such arguments were raised against the

Pharisees by their opponents, for the phrase,

might say

is

here not meant altogether

to certain people

^n

rpaiD

who

actually raised the question.

robm n^n DTI^N

A heavenly voice
of Hillel and the

DTK

was heard

nm

"lEX^

&D&

Lest some

in a hypothetical sense.

liwi

Compare

mEKi

It

refers

the saying

inp

re

nm

%t|

declaring that both the words of the School

words of the School of Shammai [despite

their disagree

ments] are the words of the living God, but the practical decision should
be according to the words of the School of Hillel (Erubin 13 b). Compare
also the passage in Gittin 6b, where Elijah is reported to have said that

God
to

declared both the opposing views of R. Abiathar and R. Jonathan

be the words of the living God. All these utterances were intended

to serve as a refutation of the attacks

made

against the teachings of the

Rabbis on account of their disagreements. We see from these covert

replies of the Rabbis that the arguments of the Karaites against the
Rabbanites (see below, note 85) were not original with the Karaites, but

were

repetitions of older arguments.

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

103
I

to

still

other subjects which they likewise

deemed unsafe

to the public at large. 79

to

communicate

it

was animated by no

This course was not altogether culpable, seeing that

selfish

motive, and that

it

was

pursued for the sake of the cause which the Rabbis wished

They were desirous of having their

accepted by the people as authoritative. They
to serve.

refrained from dwelling

a time

fact that there

struggles

of the

disputes

therefore

was once

these teachings

Instead of reporting in detail the earlier

as authoritative.

their

upon the

when some people did not accept

teachings

Pharisaic

with

their

teachers for

recognition,

opponents, they

dwelt

and

more

frequently on the continuous chain of tradition by which

they received their teachings.

teachers and

members

Pharisaic party,

of the

whom

They mentioned only those

Sanhedrin who were of the

they considered as having always

been the true religious leaders of the people.

overlooked

the fact

They

quite

that their opponents, the Sadducees,

were the ruling authorities in former times. Instead of

making explicit mention of the origin of the Mishnah-form,

which would reveal the

laws, they

assumed the

late

date of so

fact that the

many

traditional

two Laws, the written

and the oral, were both handed down by Moses through

the agency of an uninterrupted chain of true teachers, the
bearers of tradition.
later

The

result

was that

to

most of the

teachers, especially the Amoraim, the origin and

development of the Mishnah-form was almost unknown.

79

The same was done with

did not care

controversies.

to

the records of the families which the Rabbis

teach or discuss in public, fearing to cause unpleasant

They would hand them over

to

their

chosen

pupils

Kiddushin 71 a). The same was the case with certain ineffable names
of God which they communicated only to a few chosen pupils, lest the
(b.

multitude misunderstand the significance of these names

(ibid.}.

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

104

The time when

this change was made, the motives that

and
the
circumstances that accompanied it, were
it,
almost forgotten. They were known only to a very few

caused

of the later teachers.

These, like their predecessors, the

The

early teachers, did not care to speak about them.

Tannaim, and even the Amoraim, had the same

later

reasons for avoiding the mention of these conditions that

Mishnah-form as had the

led to the adoption of the

earlier

Pharisaic teachers for their silence about these facts.

as the earlier Pharisaic teachers, so the later teachers,

Just
i.

e.

the Rabbis, had to contend with more or less opposition.

They had

to

combat those who denied

rejected their teachings,

i.

e.

their authority

and

the traditional law.

After the destruction of the Temple and the dissolution

of the Jewish state, the Sadducees ceased to be a powerful

party and lost their former influence

However,
(Der

it

the people.

among

would be a mistake to assume with Biichler

galiltiische

Am Jia-Arcz, Wien

1906, p. 5) that in the

beginning of the second century c. E. the Sadducees had

They

disappeared.

altogether

continued,

if

not as an

influential party, nevertheless as a group of people holding

about the Torah, denying the binding

character of the traditional law and rejecting the authority
views

peculiar

of the Rabbis

We

law.
entire
so

who were

the advocates of that traditional

have evidence of

tannaitic

R. Jose

b.

80

period.

their existence

Many

sayings

throughout the
of

the

later

Halafta declares (M. Niddah IV, 2) that the daughters

of the Sadducees are to be considered as daughters of Israel, except in

where we know that they are determined to follow in their observance

ways of their forefathers (i. e. the former Sadducees). The reason for
this view of R. Jose is found in his other saying where he states the

cases

the

following:

pri

nnci D lMni?

UN p^pl
Dill ^H |D nnV
D^DH^ DT
We are
FIPNB
nrvnw
nnN
UTuiaBa
nn nn&nn xbv
niN"l

|i"Q

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

Tannaim

105

them, though they do not always desig

nate them expressly by the name Sadducees. They even
refer to

very well informed about them.

They

show

all

wise

their blood to the

There was only one [Sadducean] woman in

our neighbourhood who would not do so, but she is dead now (Tosefta V,
Buechler (JQR., 1913, 446) erroneously takes this
3, b. Niddah 33 b).

teachers

e.

(i.

the Rabbis).

saying of R. Jose to be merely another version of what the high priest s wife
told her husband.
Such an interpretation of R. Jose s saying is absolutely

R. Jose describes conditions prevalent in his

unwarranted.

He

towards the Sadducean

justifies his attitude

that,

women by

own

day.

the information

with few exceptions, they follow the Pharisaic regulations in observing

This shows that in the time of R. Jose b. Halafta,

the laws of menstruation.

i. e. about the middle of the second century c. E., there still were Sadducees.
Their wives, however, would, in most cases, be guided by the decisions of
the Rabbis in regard to the observance of the laws about menstruation.

The same R. Jose

Do

argument)

who

also says (M.

Parah

III, 3),

D ptt*i DlpD

T\Tl~b

not give the Sadducees an opportunity to rebel

,

and

this again

shows

flin

i>K

e.

controvert us in

that in his time there

were Sadducees

(i.

argued against the teachers.

These Sadducees are also referred to, though not expressly designated
still

by the name Sadducees,

the passage in

Num.

He

hath despised the word of the Lord

explained by R. Nathan in a Baraita (Sanhedrin 99

disregards the Mishnah,

one

who

to such

people

exception
nt

mw

m3>Dn

He

hath despised the

who would

to a single

rW J D

UW

word

one

a) to refer to

^D, that

In another Baraita (ibid.}

denies the traditional law.

that the expression,

Thus

in the sayings of other teachers of that time.

15. 31,

of the Lord

is

to say,

is
it

who

is

stated

applies even

accept the entire Torah as divine but would take

detail in the traditional interpretation

rrvwio nt iDirn /p

pnpi

pn

D^KTI

?D

"OXH

minn.

\D rrha

An anonymous
passage,

saying in Sifra, Behukkotai If (Weiss nib) interprets the

But if ye will not hearken unto Me (Lev. 26. 14), to mean, If

ye will not hearken

X? DX
by the teachers
The saying continues and speaks of people who

to the interpretation given

D^DDf! W~T]u? lyDKTl

despise and hate the teachers although they accept the laws given on Sinai.
All these utterances

were

certainly not

made without

must have been people who accepted

the Torah

provocation.

and

There

disputed

the

rabbinical laws.

Another teacher, R. Joseb. Judah,

century, rules that

if

living in the

second half of the second

Law with the exception

we should not admit him

a Gentile wishes to accept the

of even one detail of the rabbinical regulations,

as a proselyte (Tosefta,

Demai

II,

Bekorot 30 b). This shows that there

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

106

Amoraim. 81

lingered on in the time of the

the entire period of the

Amoraim

Throughout

there were certain people

must have been Jews who rejected the rabbinical laws. Therefore it could
it was possible to become a Jew without
accepting

occur to a Gentile that

all

the rabbinical laws.

This

also evident from the following story told in Jerushalmi, Shebiit IX,

is

man who disregarded the regulations regarding the sab

year instructed his wife to be careful in separating the priest s share
from the dough (hallah\ His wife, to whom this conduct seemed inconsistent,
39

a.

certain

batical

asked him

why

he insisted on the observance of the hallah-lawwhen he was

disregarding the law about the sabbatical year.

of hallah

is biblical,

His answer was

The law

the regulations about the sabbatical year are rabbinical,

having originated with R. Gamaliel and his colleagues, nTlD "DID n?n
IHOm btf*tea pl-HB JTyaiy. This shows beyond any doubt that there

were people who observed

the Torah strictly but

who

denied the validity

of the rabbinical teachings.

81

(first

R. Haniria and Abba Areka (Rab),

half of the third century

D^IP!

c. E.),

TD^D

Amoraim

of the

first

generation

describe the Epicures as one

ilDCn

who

Sanhedrin 99 b). R. Johanan,

an Amora of the second generation, and R. Eleazar b. Pedat, an Amora of
despises the teachers,

(b.

the third generation (second half of the third century), characterize the

Epicures as one

frOED
p:i")

who

JIN IDfrO

p^N

(p.

says (in a tone expressive of contempt),

who

fro, or as one

Sanhedrin X, 27

That teacher

Those Rabbis

"1EN1

frp

Buechler makes the mistake of reading

d).

instead of fro, and therefore

filb

says,

makes the saying

refer to

a priest

uses that contemptuous expression about the Rabbis (Der Galildische

who

Am

palpably wrong. The same characterization of

the Epicures is given by R. Papa, an Amora of the fifth generation (second
half of the fourth century): pll ^H ^EfcO fliO (b. Sanhedrin looa).
ha-Arez,

p. 187).

This

is

R. Joseph, an Amora of the third generation, applies the name Epicures

who say, Of what use have the Rabbis been to us

to a class of people

pm

f?

ttHK \SD

nDNn ^n

p:O

(ibid.}.

Raba, an

Amora

of the fourth

generation (first half of the fourth century), refers to a certain family of

Benjamin the physician who said, Of what use have the Rabbis been to us
;

they have never allowed a raven or forbidden a dove (ibid.}. This is

a saying which seems to express that we do not need the Rabbis, the
biblical

laws being clear enough. These people lived according to the Law,
in the Talmud (ibid.} would occasionally consult Raba con

and as stated

cerning some ritual question. Their ridiculing remark about the Rabbis
was evidently the expression of their peculiar attitude towards the teachings
of the Rabbis and of their opposition to the latter s authority.

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

107

who upheld the views and ideas of the old Sadducees.

They were opposed to the authority of the Rabbis, and
They were no longer called
rejected their teachings.
Sadducees.

were

They

as

designated

Epicureans

DWip^N, or referred to without any special name, merely

people who deny the authority of the Rabbis and

as

law

reject the traditional

These anti-rabbinic elements

of the talmudic period formed the connecting link between

82
the older Sadducees and the later Karaites.

Knowing,

that the Sadducean tendencies continued throughout the

entire

period

secret

Talmud, and had both open and

of the

we can

advocates,

readily

understand

why

the

talmudic teachers hesitated to report indiscriminately

the

details

disputes between the

of the

Sadducees, and also

all

all

Pharisees and

the differences of opinion and the

disagreement as to methods among the Pharisees them

All these, as we have seen, were the causes that
selves.

The talmudic

led to the adoption of the Mishnah-form.

teachers were careful not to place weapons in the hands of

their opponents.

Thus the strange

report

about

literature.

this

Only

fact

is

matter was preserved

in

the talmudic

historic conditions,

they show us that a knowledge of the

among some of the teachers.
likewise,

seem

to have

82

&c.,

development of the Halakah.

Compare Friedmann

Wien

in his

had a purpose

When

in

in

the

occasionally

Introduction to the Seder Eliahu Rabba,

1902. pp. 97-8, and Harkavy,

in Graetz s Geschiclite, V, pp. 472

and

real facts did exist

avoiding the mention of these significant points

historic

explicit

a few occasional remarks which escaped

the teachers hint at the actual

The Geonim,

why no

explained

ff.

Znr Entstehung

des Karaismus,

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

108

forced to speak about the same, they reveal

reticence as

much

as

by

had knowledge of the

awkward pause

in

their very

their casual remarks that they

We

facts.

the

by

pointed out above the

of R. Sherira

letter

Gaon.

In

answer to the question of the people of Kairuan regarding

the origin of the Mishnah and the Sifra and Sifre, the
Gaon was compelled to speak about the Midrash and the

He

Mishnah.

barely touches upon the subject of the Mid-

was originally the exclusive

form. Here he stops abruptly and turns to another subject,
viz. the Baraita collections of R. Hiyya and R. Oshaya.
rash, saying

We

merely that

this

might assume that something

of the

letter.

evident

83

This, however,

that R.

is

Sherira broke

thought, because he

deemed

it

is

missing in the text

It is

improbable.
off

in

the

almost

middle of a

unwise to say any more

about the adoption of the Mishnah-form

in addition to

the

Midrash.

This reluctance on the part of the Geonim to speak

about this subject is more noticeable in the responsum of
R. Zemah Gaon. The people of Kairuan inquired of R.

Zemah Gaon

regarding the attitude to be taken towards

Eldad reported that in the Talmud of his own

people the names of individual teachers were not mentioned.
As in our Talmud differences of opinion and names of

Eldad.

individual teachers are mentioned, they found this report

of Eldad very strange.

a reason

for

Zemah answered

doubting the

teachings, because the

law

in the

Eldad and

his

method described by Eldad was

mode of teaching. He states

Temple, when they taught all the

indeed the earlier

time of the

that this was not

character of

that in the
traditional

Midrash-form, they did not mention the names

83

See above, note

9.

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

of individual teachers. 84
sufficient answer,

Now,

PNI

fan nnK

pniD>

the

pyDi mfaia pa nr^na pa

one.

It is

embodied

in

said

it is

to conceal a thing (Prov. 25.

The Torah

2).

It is

It is

Why

not advisable

the glory of
this

God

mysterious

admonition, and what was the secret he sought to hide

The account

of the

above, will help us to

tion

of the

origin

Mishnah-form, given

understand the need for the admoni

and the nature of the

secret.

Geonim denied

time of the

the Mishnah and in the Talmud.

All draw from one and the same source.

to explain everything, for

words

nns minni

ton

pa:

ensi>

But

here.

following significant

nan nno.n DT^K nna news? ,nan fa

is

would seem to be a

and he should have stopped

Zemah Gaon adds

R.

this

109

that

Mishnah and Talmud embodied the

The
the

Karaites in the
teachings of the

true tradition.

They

characterized these teachings as later rabbinic inventions.

In support of their attitude they instanced the numerous

disagreements and frequent disputes of the Rabbis of the

Talmud.

They

tion

among
among them

argued,

How

the teachers

could there have been tradi

when

there was no agreement

as to their teachings and Halakot. 85

We

have seen above that the history of the development

of the Mishnah-form reflects unfavourably upon the tra
ditional character

of the

Pharisaic teachings.

This was

the reason for the talmudic silence about the origin of the

The Geonim were silent on this point for

Neither Zemah nor Sherira wanted to
how long the Midrash continued in exclusive

Mishnah-form.
the

same

reason.

state exactly

84

See above, note 33.

85

See, for instance, the arguments used by Sahl ben Mazliah (Pinsker,

Likkute Kadmomyyot) Nispahim, pp. 26,

raised by many other Karaitic writers.

35".

The same arguments are

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

110
use, for

would have shown that the Mishnah was of

it

comparatively late origin, and that

adoption was due

its

mainly to the differences of opinion that arose between the

Pharisaic teachers and the earlier authorities, the Sadducees.

When

compelled to

cnpD2

Temple times

the

in

time when Midrash was

refer to the

Zemah and

exclusive use, both

This, however, as

in

Sherira used the vague term

we have seen,

can refer only to the time before the division of the parties. 86
80

possible that the use of the term

It is

CHpDl

in this peculiar sense

a passage in Mishnah Berakot IX, 5,

was suggested to Zemah and Sherira
where the term is likewise used in referring to a custom that was prevalent
l>y

Mishnah reads as follows

in the

passage
*inK

to the division of the parties.

Temple during the time previous

in the

vbx

r^-iy

D/1JJH njn

is

reading

ITU?

CnpD3

nD&o n^pnvn I^P^D tbwn

D^DW ViW

DxWn

D*pnH

A. Schwartz, Tosifta

fWO
|D

^DJTn

nnew

the

13

lation,

i.

e.

In the

Temple evidently

i.

e.

who

Here the term CHpEQ, while

a future world.

belief in

designating the place,

1

i>3

vn

uTDH

the report of a Pharisaic regulation aimed against the Sadducees

rejected

The

[The text in the editions

pnn.
^pPp^JD, but in the Talmud-editions the
vpPpS D, which is the correct reading. Compare
Zeraim (Wilsa, 1890), p. 57, note 189.] Here we have

ID
Mishnayot reads

of the

the Temple, also includes an element of time.

refers to the time prior to this Pharisaic regu

The

prior to the division of the parties.

Pharisaic regulation

reported in this passage originated in the very early days of the differences
between the Sadducees and Pharisees, and not as Buechler (Priesler itnd
Cultus, p. 176) assumes, in the last decade of the existence of the Temple.
is evident from the fact that in the same paragraph the Mishnah reports
another regulation which no doubt originated in the early days of the
This other regulation
differences between the priests and lay teachers.

This

prescribed that a

man

name

should use the

of

God

in

greeting his neighbour.

This was either a reaction against the religious persecution under Antiochus
when it was forbidden to mention the name of God (comp. b. Rosh ha-Shanah

i8b and Meg. Taanit

p.

107

comp. also

VII), or according to Geiger (Judische Zeitschrift, V,

Urschrift, pp.

264

the Pharisees to use the name of

second
parties.
at the

regulation originated in

From

same

this

time.

we may
It is

ff.)

God

it

was

to

emphasize the claim of

as the priests did.

Anyhow,

this

the very earliest days of the division of the

conclude that the

first

regulation also originated

quite evident that the author of this report in our

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

Sherira,

who was merely asked about

III

the origin of the

Mishnah and the halakic Midrashim, could

mentioning anything he did not desire to

easily avoid

state.

He

limited

himself to answering the questions put before him. He

stated that the Mid rash was the earlier form, used ex
clusively in the earlier days of the second

however, not to define this period. He

He could well
of the Mishnah.

was

careful,

told

them the history

refrain

He

Temple.

also

from stating

why

the Mishnah was introduced as

he was not expressly

His questioners did not ask why

an additional form to the Midrash,

asked about this point.

for

a change in the form of teaching was made, and probably

did not

know

such an important change.

them about

sary to enlighten

R.

was the

the Mishnah-form

that

Zemah found

himself

result

Sherira did not find

of

neces

it

this point.

a more

in

difficult position.

He

was compelled to commit himself to some extent. He

was expressly asked why in Eldad s Talmud no names are
mentioned, while

in

our Talmud

many names

of debating

This

teachers, representing conflicting opinions, are found.

question implied a doubt in the minds of the questioners

concerning the authority of our Talmud.

He

to address himself to this doubt.

R.

first

Zemah had
admits that

originally all teachings were given in the Midrash-form.

Since in this form

teachings are presented as interpreta

written Torah

tions of the
teachers, the

mentioned.

all

and not

as opinions

of the

names of the teachers were therefore not

He

also avoids definite dates, using like Sherira

the vague term

of the exclusive

in

Temple times

to designate the period

use of the Midrash.

Mishnah mentions these two regulations

their simultaneous origin.

in the

However, he

same paragraph

to

still

denote

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

112

fears that the people

might be led to doubt the traditional

character of the Mishnah on account of the disputes and

opposing views of individual teachers that are found

He

in

therefore admonishes the questioners to entertain

it.

no

doubts about the Mishnah and the Talmud, but to con

sider them as coming from the same source as the written

Torah and

his

as being one with the Torah.

Zemah Gaon

of R.

It

day.

is

same character

of the

is

This admonition

a warning against the Karaites of

by Joshua b. Hananiah (Hagigah 3

Sadducees of his own time. 87

littered

The

the warning

as

b) against the

result of our inquiry into the cause of the talmudic-

rabbinic silence about our subject

The

the following conclusions.

may

be

summed up

early Pharisaic

in

teachers

refrained from pointing to the causes for the adoption of

the Mishnah-form, and to

its effects

upon the development

of the Halakah, in order not to strengthen the position of

their

opponents,

The

Sadducees.

the

later

talmudic

teachers similarly avoided discussion of these subjects out

of fear of those of their opponents

who

The Geonim,

Sadducean doctrines.

in

followed the old

like

manner,

re

frained from mentioning these facts, in order not to place

weapons
87

hands of

in the

their opponents, the Karaites.

At the end of

his responsum (Yellinek, Beth Hainidrash, II, p. 113)

warning not to deviate from the Talmud and the teachings
of the Rabbis in the following words nriK p JJDCl?
Ijjnin 1221

Zemah

repeats his

D^

zJ?

neW
minn
0:6

TiD^rai
s

neN

i>y

&J?

nira

"l^N

penn

pp

nmn

BBPC-n

^V1

G2rw

proves that

is

nnN

bz

htoen

pjw
\w ion iw

5>an

This repetition of the ad

Deut. 17. n, so often used by

"jl^-

monition and the citation of the passage in

the Rabbis

nan iprnnm

support of the authority of their traditional teachings, further

to allay any disquieting doubts in the minds of

Zemah aimed

the people in regard to the traditional character of the Rabbinical teachings.

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

113

IV

SAADYA

STATEMENT CONCERNING THE BEGINNINGS

OF THE MISHNAH.
we have proved from a

In the course of our discussion,

talmudic report as well as from certain utterances of the

Geonim, that the

first

introduction of the Mishnah-form

took place in the last days of Jose b. Joezer. There is but

one gaonic statement about the beginnings of the Mis.hnah

which seems to be at variance with

to the statement of

this conclusion.

Saadya Gaon

in

his Sefer

Hagalnj

a Karaitic

also

quoted by
Harkavy, Studien und Mitteilungen, V,
This statement of Saadya places the time

(Schechter, Saadyana, p. 5

I refer

writer, see

p.

194).

for

the

beginnings of the Mishnah soon after prophecy ceased,

This is
in the fourtieth year of the second Temple.

apparently a

much

earlier date

than the time of Jose

b.

A closer examination, however, will show that the

Joezer.

which Saadya assigns the beginnings of the

Mishnah is actually the same as the one which we have
period

to

found given in the Talmud and indicated by the Geonim

R. Zemah and R. Sherira, viz. the time of Jose b. Joezer.

merely due to the faulty chronology, followed by

Saadya, that his date appears to be earlier than the one
It

is

which we fixed on the basis of the evidence derived from

the

Talmud and

the statements of R.

Zemah and R.

Sherira.

We

must

keep

in

mind that Saadya followed the

rabbinic chronology as given in Seder

Olam and

Talmud.

least in so far as

This chronology, however, at

in

the

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

114
it

relates

to the earlier period of the second

is

In order to be able to fix the actual

absolutely incorrect.

time to

Temple,

which Saadya

date

refers,

we must

first

point

out the peculiarities of the talmudic-rabbinic chronology

which he followed. To account for the errors and the
confusion in this chronology,
character.

It is

an

artificial

it

is

sufficient

to

know

chronology, constructed

its

by

the later teachers for the apparent purpose of establishing

a direct connexion between the true teachers of the Law,

and the prophets, and thus

to prove the authority of the Pharisaic teachers and the
Such a direct
traditional character of their teachings.
that

is

to say, the Pharisees,

connexion between the prophets and the Pharisaic teachers

of the traditional law could be established only by utterly
ignoring the time during which the priests were the sole
religious teachers

and

leaders,

and consequently contracting

Hence

long stretches of time into short periods.

all

the

inaccuracies in this artificial and faulty chronology.

The Rabbis assume

the Law. as well as

all

that the Pharisaic teachers received

their traditional teachings, directly

In their chronology, therefore, the

from the prophets.

prophets are succeeded not by the priestly teachers, the

This is
D oro, but by the D^n, the wise lay-teachers.

expressed by the Rabbis in the statement: isn:rj |N*3 ly

D Mn
yen *pi? an 1^x1 JS:D cnipn nnn D^s^n (Seder

nm

Olam Rabba,
By D^n are
or

more

XXX

comp. also Seder Olam Zutta, VII).

evidently meant ?iW VDsn, lay-teachers,
;

exactly, Pharisaic teachers, in contradistinction to

the priests or Sadducees, the D^na.

This

is

confirmed by

the fact that in passages in the Mishnah and the Tosefta

which likewise contain the idea that the wise teachers

directly succeeded the prophets, the

Zuggot are expressly

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

115

Thus

mentioned.

Jadayyim

II, 16,

Mishnah Peah

in

we

read that the Zuggot, that

the earliest Pharisaic

teachers,

directly from the prophets,

The same
Abot

I,

and Tosefta

II,

received

D\xun

is

to say,

traditional

laws

|D li?3p^ niJITD *?ypw.

idea also underlies the statement in

Mishnah

according to which the Zuggot received the law

from the

last

members of the Great Synagogue.

according to the Rabbis, this

For,

Great Synagogue also

in

last prophets among its members.

There is
line
between
the
difference
of
one
succession
slight
only
as given in M. Abot and that given in M. Peah and Tosefta

cluded the

Jadayyim, namely, that the name of Antigonos is mentioned

in the former between the Zuggot and the Great Synagogue.

However,

in stating the

received the

DTO

I,

the

first

pair

4) uses the words

they received from them\ This clearly shows

pair, the two Joses, did not receive the law

i^p

that the

whom

authority from

Law, the Mishnah (Abot

first

from Antigonos alone. For, if this were the case, the

Mishnah would have said I:ED &3 p they received from
him
The expression DUB vTp warrants the supposition
c

that the two Joses received the

Law

from the

last

members

of the Great Synagogue, or perhaps Antigonos was con

have been the younger colleague of Simon.

this supposition there is no discrepancy
According
between all these talmudic reports. They all assume that

sidered

to

to

the last

members of the Great Synagogue, among whom

were also the

last

prophets, transmitted the

traditions directly to the

Zuggot or D^an,

i.

Law and
e.

the

the earliest

Pharisaic teachers.

This transmission of the

Law by

the prophets to the

wise teachers, or the disappearance of the prophets and

the

rise

of the D^Dan, the Pharisaic

teachers, took place

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

Il6

according to the Rabbis, in the time of Alexander the

Great, shortly after the overthrow of the Persian

Olam Rabba and

(Seder

chronology finds no

Zutta,

difficulty in

/.

Empire

This

c.}.

rabbinic

extending the time of the

For by

prophets to the end of the Persian period.

last

some

peculiar error,

which we are unable

to account for,

the Rabbis reduced the entire period of the existence of

the second

Temple under Persian

They assume
was

rule to thirty-four years.

that thirty-four years after the second

Temple

the Persian rule in Judea ceased and the Greek

built,

began (Seder Olam Rabba, I.e., and Shabbat, 15 a).

Accordingly, it was not found strange that Haggai, who
rule

urged the building of the Temple as well as the other

prophets of his time, should have lived to the end of the
Persian period and have handed
to

traditions

their

successors,

Law

over the

the

D DSn,

or

and the

wise

lay-

teachers at that time.

How

the Rabbis could identify these

so that the latter, living in

D^n

Zuggot,
could be considered the direct recipients of the
the
is

last

not

with the

the second century B.C.,

Law

from

prophets at the end of the fourth century

B. C.,

difficult to explain.

The Rabbis had

a tradition that

High Priest in the time of Alexander the Great was

Simon the Just (I) (Yoma 69 a). They also had a reliable
report of a high-priest Simon the Just (II) who lived shortly

the

before the time of the Zuggot, either a

little

before or

contemporary with Antigonos. These two Simons they

confused with one another. They identified Simon the
Just II, who lived about 200 B.C., with Simon the Just I,
one of the
at the

century

last survivors of the

Great Synagogue

who

lived

end of the fourth or the beginning of the third

B. C.

In this manner they established a direct

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

117

connexion between the prophets who were among the last

members of the Great Synagogue and the Zuggot or the
D 3n, the wise lay-teachers, who were the fathers of the
s

They were probably unaware

Pharisaic party.

of the fact

that they passed over an interval of an entire century, or

it
may be that they consciously ignored it, because, as we

have seen, there was no

official

activity of the teachers

during that period.

According
or

the

first

to this faulty chronology, then, the Zuggot,

pair,

Jose

Joezer and

b.

succeeded the prophets, or the

last

Jose

members

b.

Johanan,

of the Great

Synagogue, and commenced their activity as teachers of

Law shortly after the overthrow of the Persian Empire

the

by Alexander

that

is

much

to say, not

And

year 34 of the second

later

than the

actually this
Temple.
time, i. e. the time of the two Joses, that Saadya fixes for
the beginnings of the Mishnah. The meaning of the passage
in

Saadya

Sefer Hagaluj

is

now

clear,

it

is

and

its

date fully

agrees with our date for the beginnings of the Mishnah.

The passage
pm

reads as follows

Qinnn

}iBnn

no

irotaa

Dwajn

nx wnin ms-a ny

^s nfe

120x^1

wn &W
-in

Dyron

niHD^ ixhn

"a

TM

srb tprbxn

ww

irran

nuni>

nun pxn

n^^n irbJ? wnn by

(Schechter suggests the reading ^N*i^^) in^ pin

njirD DCB^ ns* ixnp^

We

pn nxi^ jron ni^

assume with certainty that Saadya

had a correct tradition that the teaching of Mishnah was
first

may,

begun

therefore,

in

But, misguided

the time of the

first

pair,

the two Joses.

by the erroneous rabbinic chronology which

he followed, he puts the date of this

first

pair in the year

40 of the second Temple.

The

conditions which, according to Saadya, caused the

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

Il8

teachers to begin the composition of Mishnah, also point

two Joses. For, as Saadya assumes,

what prompted the teachers to seek to preserve their
teachings in Mishnah-form was the fact that the Jewish
to the time of the

people were then scattered

all

over the earth, and the

teachers feared that the study of the

mn

gotten, Kjnn ^y

psn

5>33

paa

Law

might be for
ponn nx w-nn niK^n

*tM?. These conditions actually prevailed in the

time of the two Joses. From the Sibylline Oracle III, 271,
rOB>n

we

learn that about the middle of the second century

the Jewish people had already scattered

and were

be found

to

Geschichte, III

4
,

p. 4).

in

all

B. c.

over the earth,

every land (comp.

Schurer,

Indeed, the decree of the two Joses

declaring the lands of the Gentiles unclean (Shabbat 15 a)

may have been

this extensive

issued for the very purpose of stopping

emigration of the people into foreign lands

(see Weiss, Dor,

I,

p. 99).

Again, from the quotation of Saadya s statement by

the Karaitic writer, it would seem that Saadya designated
the teachers,

nn.

who

first

be

so, if

If this

composed Mishnah, by the name

Saadya

really applied the

to these teachers, he could have had

earliest Pharisaic teachers, or the
in

the

Talmud

however, inclined

term HUN

(p.

(edition
fathers.

ment

we

Saadya

find

it

who

are called

ohyn nUK.

d)

in referring to these teachers.

used the term unin, as

term DUN

mind only the

in

Zuggot,

Hagigah 77

to think that

in

Karaitic writer

translated this

who

Saadya probably
the

Hebrew

quotes Saadya

Hebrew word WTin by

Our contention that Saadya s date

am,

did not use the

Schechter), and which simply means, our

The

of

text
fore

state

the Arabic

refers to the

time

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

of

Jose

119

Joezer might be objected to on the ground that

b.

according to Saadya (Schechter,

I.e.)

took about 500

it

from the beginnings of the Mishnah to the final

completion of our Mishnah. If, then, Saadya s date coincides
years

with the time of Jose

b.

Joezer, the actual time between

the beginnings of the Mishnah and the completion of our

Mishnah

is

can easily be removed.

to the

This objection, however,

Here again the mistake is due

scarcely 400 years.

faulty

chronology followed by Saadya.

placed the beginnings of the Mishnah,

first pair, in

that

i.

e.

Having

the time of the

the year 40 of the second Temple, and assuming

our Mishnah

was

completed

destruction of the second Temple,

150 years

Saadya had

after

the

to extend

the period of the Mishnah to 530 years.

For, according

to the talmudic chronology, the second

Temple existed

420 years. Accordingly the period of time which elapsed

between the year 40 of the second Temple and the year
150 after its destruction was 530 years. This number was
actually given
writer.

The

by Saadya,

as

copyist, however,

instead of
S>*pn=53t>

The number 500

(see

years,

quoted

by the Karaitic

by mistake wrote ^pn = 5io,

Harkavy,
DINE WDn

op. cit., p. 195,

DTtfi?,

note

6).

assigned to the

period of the Mishnah in Sefer Hagaluj (edition Schechter,

p. 5),
(/. c.)

probably represents a round number, as Schechter

correctly remarks.

1XM

PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE

CARDS OR SLIPS FROM THIS POCKET

UNIVERSITY OF

TORONTO LIBRARY