Talk:Midrash

Examples

Can you give some examples? Just the simplest ones. I don't get into the point. Is Midrash a set of associations? --Ilya 15:05, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Arguably (almost) the entire bible is a midrash. The definition of midrash, used here, is a literary form that presents a spiritual truth as a "fact" of history in a popular manner with symbolic decorations adapted to the common mentality, it is often difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish fact from fiction.

For instance, the tale of Exodus, archaeologically speaking, lacks any virtual evidence of a actual trek through the desert. The story does however contain great spiritual/metaphysical truths about following the 10 Commandments to attain liberation from the machinations of the material plane (the desert) and the accumulation of worldly possessions. Therefore, The Exodus, is a metaphor/allegory (a "midrash") of the spiritual path to liberation as laid down by Moses.

Another example is Moses smashing the tablets upon which the 10 Commandments were written. This indicates that Moses was a person who actually "broke" all 10 Commandments and could not enter into The Promised Land.

I'm not sure what your point is. The narrative parts of the Bible are not commonly called "Midrash". Also, the reason Moses could not enter the land was not because he "broke the 10 commandments", but because he hit the rock in Numeri. JFW | T@lk 11:09, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Midrash Rabbah

Is there any reason why Midrash Qoholet Rabbah and Midrash Esther Rabbah were moved from Midrash Rabbah to (Post)-Talmudic? It seems a bit odd to list only eight of the ten rabboth in the section devoted to them. -- Arvind 16:32, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Re: the dating in the Rabbah section. The dates look far too late - perhaps rather than including final redaction dates there should be dates of composition. Shir ha Shirim rabbah, for example, has material that dates from the third century and earlier - some of it original and some of it copied from elsewhere. But, even for final redaction dates, the dates listed look far too late. Exodus rabbah was completed hundreds of years before the 12th century. -- Rose.joshua 22:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

You can make changes, just cite good sources. If the original source has "yichus" (i.e., Jewish Encyclopedia or Brittanica), I would leave the original intact with appropriate citation, and add the "better" date next to it (with appropriate citation). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dfass (talk • contribs) 17:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

Can we please add a link to [www.torahforme.com A Site with Free MP3 Classes in Medrash Pirkey Drabi Eli'ezer and Midrash Tana Dbey Eliyahu]?Samson Ben-Manoach 12:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I think Wikipedians generally frown on these types of links. Best policy is to link only to secular academic sources, otherwise we end up with everyone adding their list of "favorites" to the article, and you will surely be unhappy when the various "cult" links begin appearing. —Dfass 17:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Pirkey Drabi Eliezer

What the article states that it was not before the eighth century, is in contradiction with Radal's (Rav Dovid Luria) opinion, printed in many text of the midrash in the intro. do we have a source for this? if not, shouldn't we write Radal's opinion? Samson Ben-Manoach 23:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

editting pirkey drabi eliezer infor

no response so i am adding radals opinion. Samson Ben-Manoach 11:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure, just source it. —Dfass 14:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Good Article Review

This article is currently undergoing a review at Wikipedia:Good article review, as there were some problems detected in the article in which certain points do not meet Good article criteria. Notable problems included an inadequate lead per WP:LEAD, a complete lack of inline citations, and a lack of references throughout the article. In addition, while it is not a requirement, Good Articles are often fitted with images to improve the article's quality. If you support this delistment, or think the article should remain as a GA, feel free to add comments on the GA Review page. Thanks, Raime 14:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

This article has been delisted from its GA-status, as it did not meet criteria and was subject to speedy failing. Please meet the above problems before renominating the article as a Good article candidate. Raime 17:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there a difference?

Is there a difference in the secular academic estimate of the dates of composition and the traditional dates as in BIble books? If so, could we have both listed? 88.155.94.77 18:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Timeline at the top

I just stumbled on this page, and have no knowledge of Jewish history or texts. With that in mind, the timeline confused the hell out of me. It's labelled with periods that I can't relate to, and to be honest, the only reason I think it's a timeline and not some kind of header is because I saw "era" nearby and assumed that the numbers were calendar years. It's confusing on its own, but it's doubly so since it precedes the introductory paragraph. I suggest moving it and/or modifying its appearance. If nothing else, it's not proper Wikipedia style. 68.103.235.157 (talk) 06:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I moved the 1st paragraph above the timeline because Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups was confused by the time line.

I like the timeline, though, and was going to template-ize it for the other articles in the series (Jugot, Tannaim etc.) What would be an appropriate name for the template? Thanks. Saintrain (talk) 01:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Intelligibility

Is there a way to make this article intelligible to someone who has heard the term but has no background, insight, experience, or understanding of the topic? I am someone like that, and I came to this article to understand what midrash was. I left completely bewildered. Yes, I could look up each and every term, but I suspect in most encyclopedias, I would be given some opening information that did not require other information in order to be understood. As it stands now, it seems to be an article intended only for those who already know what it is and who are quite familiar with the realm of study it relates to. Monkeyzpop (talk) 10:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

 I just wanted to second this observation.  I turned to this page seeking to educate myself on what appears to be important and fundamental Jewish scholarship, and I leave it having gained nothing.  The writer needs to begin with the assumption that the reader knows nothing of the topic, lay a foundation, and build upon it.  As it, the article assumes, apparently, that the reader is Jewish, and builds upon that erroneous assumption.  I look forward to an accessible article.  Thanks.  Kjdamrau (talk) 23:11, 29 April 2008

"cumulatively called Pardes."

I think you mean "collectively".

Midrash = "to repeat"?

I don't think this is correct, and perhaps someone has confused it with "mishnah". Also, while nearly all Hebrew words come from a verbal root, this word is a noun. I would have translated it literally as "study, research, homily." 24.245.53.137 (talk) 17:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Reasons why don't many accept so-called "oral law"

I don't mean offend anyone here. This isn't about a debate, merely presenting and making mention why many reject do not believe oral traditions, for personally reasons.

• The bible highlights expressions indicating the law covenant mediated through the prophets Moses was already written - 2 Kings 14:5; 2 Kings 22:8, 11, 13; 23:1-3, 21, 24 1 Chronicles 16:40; 2 Chronicles 17:9; 2; 25:4; 34:14-17, 21, 24, 30, 31; 35:12, Nehemiah 8:1,3,5,8,18;9:1 Exodus 34:27; Exodus 24:3, 4, Deuteronomy 17:8-11, Joshua 8:35.
• The biblical term reminder indicates the God of the Israelites would not use man's memories without means of a written back up.
• Modern constitutions of large nation are in written form for a good reason.
• Oral law usually interprets things literally, and does not acknowledge that Hebrew can express things in figurative language, e.g., Exodus 13:9 compare with Proverbs 7:2, 3.
• Much is self-explanatory e.g., “You must not commit adultery." - Exodus 20:14.
• In any other important matters that seemed obscure, to receive God’s answer, the nation was directed, not to an oral law, but rather to the Urim and Thummim in the hands of the priests.—Exodus 28:30; Leviticus 8:8; Numbers 27:18-21; Deuteronomy 33:8-10.
• Oral sources of preservation are unreliable, e.g., the game Le téléphone arabe.
• "There was no doubt some traditions passed down as to how to carry out specifically certain aspects of the Law. But the fact that a tradition is long-standing doesn't prove divine inspiration. E.g., note the tradition that developed regarding the bronze serpent. —Numbers 21:8, 9; 2 Kings 18:4."
• The bible already set a creed for the biblical interpretation, “Do not interpretations belong to God? (Genesis 40:8).

"Most often, pieces of information passed on orally are subject to additions & subtractions, modifications, distortions, exaggerations, & confusions, so that it is often difficult to separate the truth from the fiction." - The book West African Traditional Religion.

• The ancient Jews were a literate people, & nation (Deuteronomy 6:8, 9; 31:19) and had scribes whom acted as public notaries, - Nehemiah 139:16; Jeremiah 32:12; Ezra 7:6, 7, 11. Thus it would seem illogical for them to even imagine an oral law system.
• Evidence seems to show "oral law" was started during 200-100 B.C.E, and not 1513 B.C.E.
• "Errors & discrepancies in Seder ‘Olam Rabbah and other Talmudic chronological works have caused much embarrassment and considerable discussion among Jewish scholars."
• The sages' "preserving" this information character is in question. - Zephaniah; Jeremiah 6:13; Malachi 2:7, 8;
• "Written records speak for themselves, but could men who were so unfaithful be depended on to preserve faithfully an oral tradition?"
• All people knew the information. Deuteronomy 30:11, 14; Nehemiah 8, 8. No need for Rabbis.
• The term rabbi does not occur in the holy Tanakh. The Encyclopaedia Judaica states: “The title rabbi is derived from the noun rav, which in Biblical Hebrew means ‘great’ and does not occur in the [Hebrew] Bible.”
• Many of the common Jewish people "am ha-′arets ", the Samaritans (later had some followed some non-biblical rules), Sadducees (had some followed some non-biblical rules), Essenes (had some followed some non-biblical rules), Followers of John the Baptist, Followers of Jesus (Yeshua') the Christians, the Karaites (later had some followed some non-biblical rules), Some of the reform and coversative movements did not accept much of so called "oral law" (many had non-biblical rules).
• "It is well known that this new prominence given to fraternity of the rabbis rather than to the priests and prophets caused the so-called "oral law" to be the new centerpiece of Judaism. As long as the temple in Jerusalem was the center of Jewish worship, however, the issue of an oral law was secondary." "The services at the synagogue, led by the rabbis, replaced worship at the temple, supervised by the priests. Prayers, especially those on the Day of Atonement, replaced sacrifices."
• The Talmud contradicts itself.
• The Encyclopedia of Judaism comments: “The Oral Law is not a definitive code; it includes many diverse and even conflicting opinions.
• Many have passages in the Talmud shocking and offensive.
• The interpretation of the Talmud is much debated, so-called "oral law" was a claim solution to avoid debate.
• The Talmud full of fables.*

“that the Talmud contains “a large assortment of pointless naïvetés, taboos, superstitions, demonic lore, myths,”" - The Book of Jewish Knowledge, by Nathan Ausubel.

• Many believe that "Great Synagogue" was misguided:

"Some teachers of the Law claimed to follow in Ezra’s footsteps and formed what came to be termed the “Great Synagogue.” Among its sayings was the directive: “Make a fence around the Law.” These teachers reasoned that the Law was like a precious garden. In order that no one should trespass in this garden by transgressing its laws, they created further laws, the “Oral Law,” to prevent the people from coming close to such error." To combat the influence of Greek philosophy and culture, groups of religious leaders arose among the Jews. (See box, page 10.) In time some of these groups came to rival and even surpass the Leviticus priesthood as teachers of the Law.

• "While much of the Talmud was highly legalistic, its illustrations and explanations reflected the clear influence of Greek philosophy."
• There are no majestic signs and miracles in them, and the Oral laws lack the formula: "And the Lord spoke unto Moses and unto Aaron." - (see Canto II) - http://www.karaite-korner.org/salmon_ben_yeruham.shtml#canto1.
• Historians reject the idea or view of the Talmudic had of the Sanhedrin. "They say that not until the Persian domination of Israel did something resembling the first-century Sanhedrin come into existence. Historians also hold that the learned academy of the Talmudists seems to fit in better, not with the Sanhedrin, but with 2nd and 3rd-century rabbinic assemblies."
• If the oral law system was meant to be kept then why was written? Does that "break" God's orders? —Why Was It Put in Writing? Especially since the oral system was to be a great system.
• The works of the Talmud seems very extreme in some aspects:

e.g., “He who lightly esteems hand-washing will perish from the earth.” - The Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol. I. pages 68, 69; Code of Jewish Law, 1927, Rabbi S. Ganzfried, pages 125-129.

• During the more than a thousand years of recording the Hebrew Scriptures? From Moses to Malachi, there is no convincing mention of the existence of such an oral law code.

As an example of one of these false stories, consider this from the Palestinian (Jerusalem) Talmud: “R. Samuel b. Nahman in the name of R. Jonathan said: The tables [on which Moses received the Ten Commandments] were six hand-breadths long and three wide: and Moses was holding two hand-breadths, and God two, so that there were two hand-breadths interval between their fingers; and when the Israelites were adoring the calf, God sought to snatch the tables away from Moses’ hands; but Moses’ hands were so powerful that he snatched them from Him.” The story continues that then “the letters flew off” the tablets; as a result, since “the writing was sustaining them,” the tablets “became too heavy for Moses’ hands, and fell, and were broken.”—Ta‛anit, V, pp. 116, 117, translated by A. W. Greenup.

"“[If] he transgresses the words of the [written] Law, he is not culpable,” but if “he adds to the words of the Scribes [oral traditions], he is culpable.”"...

• Wikipedia menetions: "The discussion of shechita (kosher slaughter) in Deuteronomy 12 states...but the Torah does not record an earlier commandment." The verse somewhat quoted is

Deuteronomy 12:21 as an argument pro-oral law: It is not really accurate, this seen by reading the start of the chapter (Deuteronomy 12:6-21). And the knowing Hebrew expression it is better rendered "just as I have commanded you" (NW) rather "an earlier commandment". The Jewish Publication Society rendering in the Jewish Tanakh (1917) rendered it as follows, "as I have commanded thee,".

Feel free to write more reasons why many reject oral law. Remember this not about arguing here merely present a different viewpoint.