From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


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[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 17:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

Can we please add a link to [ 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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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)

This article is written in a manner that renders it unintelligible for someone unacquainted with the subject matter. And what is the chart at the top? Cush (talk) 12:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

  • I agree 100 percent. A general reader should be able to at least understand the first few paragraphs. (talk) 20:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Is there a difference?[edit]

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? 18:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Timeline at the top[edit]

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. (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)


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."[edit]

I think you mean "collectively".

Midrash = "to repeat"?[edit]

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." (talk) 17:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Edits by[edit]

An anonymous ip editor diff added a long essay arguing that the oral law is a fiction and other related ideas. As the talk pages are to talk about the article itself, not the subject of the article, I have removed it. If anyone would like to respond to the poster comments I recommend finding a forum more conducive to that discussion - Wikipedia is not the place. Jon513 (talk) 16:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Midrash theory about Jesus[edit]

There is a somewhat of a fringe theory about Jesus that argues from the standpoint of the Jewish Midrash. It essentially claims that the Gospels' historicity has been widely exagerated because of an alleged reproduction of key passages from the Old Testament or Tanakh. Although this theory has been widely discredited by mainstream exegetes, it remains popular among ideologically motivated secularist writers because it is one of the more common versions of the equally discredited Christ myth theory. It has even been adopted by a few liberal Christian theologians such as John Shelby Spong. ADM (talk) 23:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Intelligibility of This article[edit]

Why is this article replete with so much jargon? I could not parse what exactly is "homilectic" about the midrash anywhere in the article. This is a consistent problem with the field of theology and the people who study it: the use of obscurantism to make their subject seem as exacting as the sciences. It's annoying as heck. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Multiple Issues tag[edit]

The article reads like original research because there are so few inline citations and overall references. It (as others have noted) appears to be overly complex. I am not familiar with the subject matter enough to make wholesale changes but am available to help.Awotter (talk) 05:17, 6 April 2014 (UTC)