Rabbinic literature
Talmud Readers byAdolf Behrman
Talmudic literature
Tannaitic Mishnah Tosefta Amoraic (Gemara) Jerusalem Talmud Babylonian Talmud Later Minor Tractates
Halakhic Midrash
Exodus Mekhilta of Rabbi Ishmael Mekhilta of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai Leviticus Sifra (Torat Kohanim) Numbers and Deuteronomy Sifre Sifrei Zutta on Numbers (Mekhilta le-Sefer Devarim)
Aggadic Midrash
Tannaitic Seder Olam Rabbah Alphabet of Rabbi Akiva Baraita of the Forty-nine Rules Baraita on the Thirty-two Rules Baraita on the Erection of the Tabernacle 400–600 CE Genesis Rabbah Lamentations Rabbah Pesikta de-Rav Kahana Esther Rabbah Midrash Iyyob Leviticus Rabbah Seder Olam Zutta Tanhuma Megillat Antiochus 650–900 CE Avot de-Rabbi Natan Pirkei De-Rabbi Eliezer Tanna Devei Eliyahu Alphabet of Sirach Ecclesiastes Rabbah Shir HaShirim Rabbah Deuteronomy Rabbah Devarim Zutta Pesikta Rabbati Midrash Shmuel Midrash Proverbs Ruth Rabbah Baraita of Samuel Targum Sheni 900–1000 CE Ruth Zuta Eichah Zuta Midrash Tehillim Midrash Hashkem Exodus Rabbah Shir ha-Shirim Zutta Iggeret of Rabbi Sherira Gaon 1000–1200 CE Midrash Tadshe Sefer haYashar Later Yalkut Shimoni Yalkut haMachiri Midrash Jonah Ein Yaakov Midrash HaGadol Numbers Rabbah Smaller midrashim
Targum
Torah Targum Onkelos Targum Pseudo-Jonathan Fragment Targum Targum Neofiti Nevi'im Targum Jonathan Ketuvim Targum Tehillim Targum Mishlei Targum Iyyov Targum to the Five Megillot Targum Sheni to Esther Targum to Chronicles
v t e

Midrash halakha (Hebrew:מִדְרָשׁ הֲלָכָה) was the ancientJudaicrabbinic method ofTorah study that expounded upon the traditionally received613 Mitzvot (commandments) by identifying their sources in theHebrew Bible, and by interpreting these passages as proofs of the laws' authenticity.

The termmidrash halakha is also applied to the derivation of new laws, either by means of a correct interpretation of the obvious meaning of scriptural words themselves or by the application of certainhermeneutic rules.

The wordmidrash is rooted in the termdrash, literally "seek," or "enquire," but practically meaning exposition.^[1]Midrash is then "that which has been expounded," or more simply, a work focused on rabbinic exposition (of theTorah or of Torah based laws and ethics).^[2][3] The word is applied only to compilations ofTannaic midrash or to theTannaic exposition process.^[4][5]

However, the common termmidrash used by itself has come to be a shorthand for the termmidrash aggadah which, in contrast tomidrash halakha, are non-legaltannaic expositions that are based on the Bible.Midrash halakha is notaggadic, sometimes resulting in confusion with the common shorthand meaning ofmidrash. Instead, the product ofmidrash halakha are legal works, primarilyMishnah andBeraisa.

The phrase "Midrash halakha" was first employed byNachman Krochmal,^[6] theTalmudic expression beingMidrash Torah = "investigation of theTorah".^[7] These interpretations were often regarded as corresponding to the real meaning of the scriptural texts; thus it was held that a correct elucidation of the Torah carried with it the proof of thehalakha and the reason for its existence.

In themidrash halakha three divisions may be distinguished:

• Themidrash of the olderhalakha, that is, themidrash of the Soferim and theTannaim of the first two generations;
• Themidrash of the youngerhalakha, or themidrash of theTannaim of the three following generations;
• Themidrash of several youngerTannaim and of manyAmoraim who did not interpret a biblical passage as an actual proof of thehalakha, but merely as a suggestion or a support for it (zekher le-davar;asmakhta).

The olderhalakha sought only to define the compass and scope of individual laws, asking under what circumstances of practical life a given rule was to be applied and what would be its consequences. The oldermidrash, therefore, aims at an exact definition of the laws contained in the scriptures by an accurate interpretation of the text and a correct determination of the meaning of the various words. The form ofexegesis adopted is frequently one of simplelexicography, and is remarkably brief.

A few examples will serve to illustrate the style of the oldermidrash halakha. It translates the wordra'ah (Exodus 21:8) as "displease" (Mekhilta,Mishpatim), which is contrary to the interpretation of RabbiEliezer. From the expressionbe-miksat (Exodus 12:4), which, according to it, can mean only "number," the olderhalakha deduces the rule that when killing thePassover lamb the slaughterer must be aware of the number of persons who are about to partake of it.^[8]

The statement that the determination of the calendar of feasts depends wholly on the decision of theNasi and his council is derived from Leviticus 23:37, the defectively writtenotam (them) being read asattem (you) and the interpretation, "which you shall proclaim," being regarded as conforming to the original meaning of the phrase.^[9] When two different forms of the same word in a given passage have been transmitted, one written in the text (ketib), and the other being the traditional reading (qere), thehalakha, not wishing to designate either as wrong, interprets the word in such a way that both forms may be regarded as correct. Thus it explains Leviticus 25:30-where according to theqere the meaning is "in the walled city," but according to theketib, "in the city that is not walled"-as referring to a city that once had walls, but no longer has them.^[10] In a similar way it explains Leviticus 11:29.^[11] According to Krochmal,^[12] theketib was due to the Soferim themselves, who desired that the interpretation given by thehalakha might be contained in the text; for example, in the case ofotam andattem noted above, they intentionally omitted the lettervav.

The youngerhalakha did not confine itself to the mere literal meaning of single passages, but sought to draw conclusions from the wording of the texts in question by logical deductions, by combinations with other passages, etc. Hence itsmidrash differs from the simpleexegesis of the olderhalakha. It treats the Bible according to certain general principles, which in the course of time became more and more amplified and developed (seeTalmud); and its interpretations depart further and further from the simple meaning of the words.

A few examples will illustrate this difference in the method of interpretation between the older and the youngerhalakhah. It was a generally accepted opinion that the firstPassover celebrated in Egypt, that of theExodus, differed from those that followed it, in that at the first one the prohibition of leavened bread was for a single day only, whereas at subsequent Passovers this restriction extended to seven days. The olderhalakha^[13] represented by R.Jose the Galilean, bases its interpretation on a different division of the sentences in Exodus 13 than the one generally received; connecting the wordha-yom (= "this day", the first word of verse 13:4) with verse 13:3 and so making the passage read: "There shall no leavened bread be eaten this day." The youngerhalakha readsha-yom with verse 13:4, and finds its support for the traditionalhalakha by means of the principle ofsemukot (collocation); that is to say, the two sentences, "There shall no leavened bread be eaten," and "This day came ye out," though they are separated grammatically, are immediately contiguous in the text, and exert an influence over each other.^[14] What the olderhalakha regarded as the obvious meaning of the words of the text, the younger infers from the collocation of the sentences.

The wide divergence between the simple exegesis of the olderhalakha and the artificiality of the younger is illustrated also by the difference in the method of explaining the Law, cited above, in regard to uncleanness. Bothhalakhot regard it as self-evident that if a man is unclean, whether it be from contact with a corpse or from any other cause, he may not share in the Passover.^[15] The youngerhalakha, despite the dot over the ה, readsrechokah and makes it refer toderekh ("road" or "way") even determining how far away one must be to be excluded from participation in the feast. However, to find a ground for thehalakha that those who are unclean through contact with other objects than a corpse may have no share in the Passover, it explains the repetition of the wordish in this passage (Leviticus 9 10) as intending to include all other cases of defilement.

Despite this difference in method, themidrashim of the older and of the youngerhalakha alike believed that they had sought only the true meaning of the scriptures. Their interpretations and deductions appeared to them to be really contained in the text; and they wished them to be considered correct biblical expositions. Hence they both have the form of scriptural exegesis, in that each mentions the biblical passage and thehalakha that explains it, or, more correctly, derives from it.

It is to a law stated in this form—i.e., together with the biblical passage it derives from—that the namemidrash applies, whereas one that, though ultimately based on the Bible, is cited independently as an established statute is called ahalakha. Collections of halakhot of the second sort are theMishnah and theTosefta; compilations of the first sort are thehalakhic midrashim. This name they receive to distinguish them from thehaggadic midrashim, since they containhalakhot for the most part, although there arehaggadic portions in them. In these collections the line between independenthalakha andmidrash halakha is not sharply drawn.

Many mishnayot (single paragraph units) in the Mishnah and in the Tosefta aremidrashic halakhot.^[16] On the other hand, thehalakhic midrashim contain independent halakhot without statements of their scriptural bases.^[17] This confusion is explained by the fact that the redactors of the two forms of halakhot borrowed passages from one another.^[18]

Since thehalakhic midrashim had for their secondary purpose the exegesis of the Bible, they were arranged according to the text of thePentateuch. As Genesis contains very little matter of a legal character, there was probably no halakhicmidrash to this book. On the other hand, to each of the other four books of the Pentateuch there was amidrash from the school ofRabbi Akiva and one from the school of RabbiIshmael, and thesemidrashim are still in great part extant. Thehalakhic midrash to Exodus from the school of R. Ishmael is theMekilta, while that of the school of R. Akiva is the Mekilta of R.Shimon bar Yochai, most of which is contained inMidrash ha-Gadol.^[19]

Ahalakhic midrash to Leviticus from the school of R. Akiva exists under the name "Sifra" or "Torat Kohanim." There was one to Leviticus from the school of R. Ishmael also, of which only fragments have been preserved.^[20] Thehalakhic midrash to Numbers from the school of R. Ishmael is the "Sifre"; while of that of the school of R. Akiva, theSifre Zutta, only extracts have survived inYalkut Shimoni andMidrash HaGadol.^[21] The middle portion of the Sifre to Deuteronomy forms ahalakhic midrash on that book from the school of R. Akiva, while another from the school of R. Ishmael has been shown by Hoffmann to have existed.^[22] This assignment of the severalmidrashim to the school of R. Ishmael and to that of R. Akiva respectively, however, is not to be too rigidly insisted upon; for the Sifre repeats in an abbreviated form some of the teachings of the Mekilta, just as the Mekilta included in theMidrash HaGadol has incorporated many doctrines from Akiba'smidrash.^[23]

Midrashic halakhot found also scattered through the two Talmuds; for many halakhicbaraitot (traditions in oral law) that occur in the Talmuds are reallymidrashic, recognizable by the fact that they mention the scriptural bases for the respective halakhot, often citing the text at the very beginning. In theJerusalem Talmud themidrashic baraitot frequently begin withketib (= "It is written"), followed by the scriptural passage. From the instances ofmidrashic baraitot in the Talmud that are not found in the extantmidrashim, the loss of many of the latter class of works must be inferred.^[24]

Themidrash which theAmoraim use when deducingtannaitic halakhot from the scriptures is frequently very distant from the literal meaning of the words. The same is true of many explanations by the youngertannaim. These occur chiefly as expositions of such halakhot as were not based on scripture but which it was desired to connect with or support by a word in the Bible. TheTalmud often says of the interpretations of a baraita: "The Biblical passage should be merely a support" (asmachta). Of this class are many of the explanations in the Sifra^[25] and in the Sifre.^[26] Thetanna also often says frankly that he does not cite the biblical word as proof ("re'aya"), but as a mere suggestion ("zecher"; lit. "reminder") of the halakah, or as an allusion ("remez") to it.^[27]

• Rabbinic literature

 This article incorporates text from a publication now in thepublic domain: Singer, Isidore; et al., eds. (1901–1906)."MIDRASH HALAKAH".The Jewish Encyclopedia. New York: Funk & Wagnalls.Bibliography:

• Z. Frankel, Hodegetica in Mischnam, pp. 11-18, 307-314, Leipsic, 1859;
• A. Geiger, Urschrift, pp. 170-197, Breslau, 1857;
• D. Hoffmann, Zur Einleitung in die Halachischen Midraschim, Berlin, 1888;
• Nachman Krochmal, Moreh Nebuke ha-Zeman, section 13, pp. 143-183, Lemberg, 1863;
• H. M. Pineles, Darkah shel Torah, pp. 168-201, Vienna, 1861;
• I. H. Weiss, Dor, i. 68-70 et passim, ii. 42-53.

• Jay M. Harris,Midrash Halachah, in:The Cambridge History of Judaism, Volume IV: The Late Roman-Rabbinic Period. Cambridge University Press (2006).

• Pages using the EasyTimeline extension
• Articles with short description
• Short description matches Wikidata
• Pages using sidebar with the child parameter
• Articles containing Hebrew-language text
• Wikipedia articles incorporating a citation from the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia
• Wikipedia articles incorporating a citation from the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia without a Wikisource reference
• Wikipedia articles incorporating text from the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia
• Halakhic Midrashim
• Ancient Hebrew texts