There were, therefore, various erroneous opinions regarding this lost work. Zunz[9] considered it as a kabbalistic work ascribed to R. Shimon ben Yochai. M. H. Landauer[10] identified it with the Mekhilta of Rabbi Ishmael, while J. Perles[11] held that the medieval authors applied the name "Mekhilta de-Rabbi Shimon" merely to his maxims which were included in the Mekhilta de-Rabbi Yishmael, since separate sentences could be called "mekhilta". M. Friedmann was the first to maintain[12] that, in addition to R. Ishmael's work, there was a halakhic midrash to Exodus by R. Shimon, which was called the "Mekhilta de-Rabbi Shimon," and that this Mekhilta formed part of the Sifre mentioned in the Talmud Bavli.[13]
This assumption of Friedmann's was subsequently confirmed by the publication of a geonic responsum,[14] where a baraita from the Sifre de-Bei Rav to Exodus is quoted, which is the same passage as that cited by Nahmanides from the Mekhilta de-Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai, in his commentary on Exodus 22:12. This extract designates the work of R. Ishmael as the "Mekhilta of Palestine," in contradistinction to Shimon ben Yochai's midrash. It is clear, therefore, that the Mekhilta of R. Shimon was implied in the title Sifre de-Bei Rav;[15] and it is mentioned in the Midrash Tehillim[16] under the Hebrew name Middat Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai.
Midrash Em Portugues Pdf 14
It is possible also that Shimon himself intended to refer to his midrash in his saying: "My sons, learn my middot; for my middot are the finest of the finest middot of Rabbi Akiva".[17] The Judean sources, the Yerushalmi and the aggadic midrashim, introduce baraitot from this Mekhilta with the phrase, "Tanei Rabbi Shimon" = "Rabbi Shimon has taught".[18] The phrase "Tana de-Bei Rabbi Shimon" is extremely rare, however, in the Talmud Bavli, where this midrash ranks as one of the "Sifre de-Bei Rav".[19] Many sentences of Shimon are quoted there in the name of his son Eleazar, so that Hoffmann has very plausibly concluded[20] that Eleazar edited his father's midrash.
This Mekhilta compiled from Midrash haGadol preserves abundant material from the earliest Scriptural commentaries, quoting, for instance, a sentence from the Doreshei Reshumot on Exodus 21:12[23] which is found nowhere else. It contains also much from post-Talmudic literature,[24] for the collector and redactor of the Midrash haGadol had a peculiar way of dressing sentences of such medieval authorities as Rashi, Ibn Ezra, Arukh, and Maimonides in midrashic garb and presenting them as ancient maxims.[25]
Rodrigo, o livro citado no post está esgotado no momento. Mas você pode conhecer mais midrashim na coleção O Pequeno Midrash Diz (vendidos em conjunto e separadamente) e no Tesouro de Agadót Bíblicas. Links abaixo.
A palavra midraxe (algumas vezes grafada midrash) deriva da palavra hebraica דךש (darash), que significa "investigar", "pesquisar", associada ao prefixo מ (mi), que é pronome interrogativo: "quem?".2 2 AZEVEDO, Midrash Rabbah: a Torá oral e a discussão rabínica medieval, p. 165. O midraxe é um método judaico de interpretação bíblica que consiste na releitura e recontagem de determinada narrativa, acrescentando-lhe detalhes. Nesse processo, diferentes midraxim3 3 A palavra midraxim (ou midrashim) é a transliteração da forma plural do substantivo masculino midraxe em hebraico. podem chegar a diferentes conclusões, sem que isso seja visto como incoerente ou contraditório.4 4 AZEVEDO, cit. Intérpretes judeus há muito observaram que a narrativa bíblica é enxuta, econômica e concisa por demais. Daí o esforço na criação do midraxe, que busca preencher lacunas, facilitando dessa maneira a compreensão do texto.5 5 Para uma comparação crítica entre as narrativas bíblica e homérica, ver o ensaio "A cicatriz de Ulisses" de Erich Auerbach em seu livro Mimesis. O professor Gerald Bruns, da Universidade Notre Dame, explica:
Of the two remaining sons who both ask a question, one (Devarim 6:20) asks a detailed question, and the other (Shemot 13:14) asks a very simple question. On this basis, the midrash identifies the first as the wise son, and the later as the simple son.
Harav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik suggested that the criteria determining the order in which the sons are brought in the midrash include their moral level and their level of activism. The sons are actually grouped in two sets of pairs. The first son is a good person who is active in pursuit of knowledge and meaning. His counterpart is actively wicked, openly challenging his parents and the tradition. The third son is also a good person, but less active in pursuit of knowledge. His counterpart, the one who does not ask the question, is actually a wicked child who is passive, so uninterested and uninvolved that he does not even have the ability to ask the question. According to Rav Soloveitchik, this son is not necessarily the young child who is unable to ask questions because of his cognitive level, but rather one who is indifferent. This structure is supported by aspects of the texts of the Torah and the midrash: 1) The wicked son and the son who does not know how to ask the question are connected to each other in the midrash in that they are given the same answer. 2) The wise son and the simple son are connected in the Torah text in that they are the two that ask questions. Similarly, in the references to these two sons, the Torah uses the word מחר (tomorrow). They are the ones who are looking toward the future. This is in contrast to the verse that refers to the son who does not know how to ask the question which uses the term היום (today).
Still, this more nuanced approach to the kings, and particularly Nebuchadnezzar was not sufficient for later tradition. The Jewish interpretive process seeks to rectify the theological incongruity of a mighty enemy of the Jews who was never punished as it was felt that he deserved. The midrashic interpreters will humiliate and respond to Nebuchadnezzar in a manner that the Book of... 2ff7e9595c
Comments