|
:''The Midrashim are mostly derived from, and based upon, the teachings of the Tannaim'': ImageSize = width:590 height:120 PlotArea = width:570 height:25 left:5 bottom:60 TimeAxis = orientation:horizontal DateFormat = yyyy Period = from:-250 till:2000 AlignBars = early ScaleMajor = unit:year increment:200 start:-200 ScaleMinor = unit:year increment:50 start:-200 Colors = id:turkiz value:rgb(0,0.76,0.76) id:treaty value:rgb(0.6,0.8,0.6) id:lightgrey value:rgb(0.6,0.8,0.4) id:darkgrey value:rgb(0.6,0.8,0) id:Celadon value:rgb(0.67,1,0.68) id:TeaGreen value:rgb(0.81,0.94,0.75) Define $hx = 15 # shift text to right side of bar PlotData = bar:Leaders color:blue width:20 align:left fontsize:s from:-250 till:0 color:treaty shift:(-10,$hx) text:Zugot from:0 till:220 color:turkiz shift:(-15,$hx) text:Tannaim from:220 till:500 color:TeaGreen shift:(-20,$hx) text:Amoraim from:500 till:625 color:darkgrey shift:(-20,$hx) text:Savoraim from:625 till:1050 color:turkiz shift:(-15,$hx) text:Geonim from:1050 till:1500 color:TeaGreen shift:(-20,$hx) text:Rishonim from:1500 till:2000 color:treaty shift:(-20,$hx) text:Acharonim LineData = layer:front # all lines in front of bars unless stated otherwise from:0 till:350 atpos:65 color:red width:2 Legend = columns:4 left:125 top:25 columnwidth:150 Colors = id:aaa value:red legend:Era_of_the_Tannaim Midrash halakha (Hebrew: הֲלָכָה) was the ancient Judaic rabbinic method of Torah study that expounded upon the traditionally received 613 Mitzvot ("laws") by identifying their sources in the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible), and by interpreting these passages as proofs of the laws' authenticity. Midrash more generally also refers to the "non-legal" interpretation of the Tanakh (aggadic midrash). The term is applied also 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 certain hermeneutic rules. ==Terminology== The phrase "Midrash halakha" was employed by Nachman Krochmal (in his "Moreh Nebuke ha-Zeman," p. 163), the Talmudic expression being "Midrash Torah" = "investigation of the Torah". 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 the halakha and the reason for its existence. In the Midrash halakha three divisions may be distinguished: *The midrash of the older halakha, that is, the midrash of the Soferim and the Tannaim of the first two generations; *The midrash of the earlier halakha, or the midrash of the Tannaim of the three following generations; *The midrash of several younger tannaim and of a large number of amoraim who did not interpret a Biblical passage as an actual proof of the halakha, but merely as a suggestion or a support for it ("''zekher le-davar''"; "''asmakhta''"). The early halakha 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 earlier Midrash, 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 of exegesis adopted is frequently one of simple lexicography, and is remarkably brief. A few examples will serve to illustrate the style of the older Midrash halakha. It translates the word "ra'ah" (Ex. xxi. 8) "displease" (Mek., Mishpatim), which is contrary to the interpretation of Rabbi Eliezer. From the expression "be-miksat" (Ex. xii. 4), which, according to it, can mean only "number," the older halakha deduces the rule that when killing the Passover lamb the slaughterer must be aware of the number of persons who are about to partake of it (Mek., Bo, 3 (I.H. Weiss, p. 5a )). The statement that the determination of the calendar of feasts depends wholly on the decision of the nasi and his council is derived from Lev. xxiii. 37, the defectively written "otam" (them) being read as "attem" (ye) and the interpretation, "which ye shall proclaim," being regarded as conforming to the original meaning of the phrase (R. H. 25a). 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"), the halakha, 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 Lev. xxv. 30-where according to the qere the meaning is "in the walled city," but according to the ketib, "in the city that is not walled"-as referring to a city that once had walls, but no longer has them ('Ar. 32b). In a similar way it explains Lev. xi. 29 (Ḥul. 65a). According to Krochmal (l.c. pp. 151 et seq.), the ketib was due to the Soferim themselves, who desired that the interpretation given by the halakha might be contained in the text; for example, in the case of "otam" and "attem" noted above, they intentionally omitted the ו. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「midrash halakha」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|