Midrash Rabbah, printed in Cracow 1609. |
INTRODUCTION
When the Midrash Rabbah was first printed in the
sixteenth century it contained ten collections[1]
of Midrashic works which were collated largely at the discretion of the
printers themselves without much rabbinic input. No similar anthology had
existed before in manuscript form.[2]
This article, based extensively on the research by Dr
Benjamin Williams[3], traces
the development of this new anthology of Midrash Rabbah from its first
printing to the format we have today.
THE FIRST MIDRASH RABBAH:
The Midrash Rabbah was first printed in
Constantinople in 1512 and then in Venice in 1545. This was followed by
editions printed in Cracow and Salonica.
Then an interesting development took place. Various rabbis
began writing commentary on this new anthology of ten Midrashim and added
details and some extra material, “…producing comprehensive volumes of notes
and glosses…”[4]
However, at the same time as commentary on these ten Midrashim
was being produced, some rabbis expressed their criticism of various textual
errors in these early printings which contained, “…obscure (and, in
particular, non-Hebrew) vocabulary.”
This created the need to produce even more exposition and
commentary in order to remedy these mistakes, resulting in the original form
and structure of Midrash Rabbah beginning to change.
THE “FLEXIBILITY” OF THE CONSTANTINOPLE PRINTERS:
Williams explains just how “flexible” the Constantinople
printers were:
“The Constantinople printers
of these volumes…seem to have enjoyed considerable freedom with regard to the
texts they printed… Furthermore, despite the printers’ assurance that ‘the work
of heaven was completed, refined and purified and distilled seven times over’,
they edited these texts with considerable flexibility, both adding and omitting
passages.”
This created a knock-on effect with regard to the future
printings of Midrash Rabbah. Williams explains:
“The limited editing carried
out by printers who relied heavily on recent editions led to the perpetuation
of textual errors from print to print…
The would-be reader of the new
books of Midrash Rabbah, hindered by textual corruption, obscure vocabulary,
and the lack of appropriate commentaries, was helpless as he faced the
unfathomable riches contained in the words of the sages.”
COMMENTATORS BEGIN TO PROTEST:
Because of the difficulties relating to the printed editions
of Midrash Rabbah, some sixteenth century rabbis began to object and
protest, calling for a revision of the text.
MEIR BENVENISTE:
R. Meir Benveniste of Salonica responded to the difficulties
in Midrash Rabbah by publishing his commentary, Ot Emet in 1565.
This work contained lengthy critical lists of mistakes in the printing of the Midrashic
texts in Midrash Rabbah.
In the preface to his Ot Emet, Benveniste describes
an apparently common practice at that time, which was to emend[5]
printed editions of these Midrashim with handwritten corrections over
the original printed text. These corrections would be copied from other printed
texts which were already hand corrected.
Benveniste labelled his annotations and emendations in a
systematic manner corresponding to the page and line, making it easy for the
reader to also do the same to his own printed edition.
Benveniste writes:
“All these annotations are
necessary for whomsoever might wish to write them down in the margin of the
midrashim, each at its place. A unit of text is often incomprehensible without
my annotation at the beginning of it. Therefore, anyone who finds the point of
the text difficult [to understand] does not need to set out in search of the
annotation, but only needs to look in the place where the difficulty arose.”[6]
But Benveniste cautions:
“Do not rely or depend on the
few annotated midrashim found in this city that were copied from books of my annotations.
It was some time since they were copied and, without a doubt, they do not even
contain half of the annotation[s].”[7]
An industry of sorts began to emerge because the printed
books with handwritten annotations were in great demand and people were
prepared to pay a premium for such works, especially when corrected by a known
scholar.
This faith in handwritten corrections did not only apply to
printed Midrashic works, but to other works as well. The printed version
of the Zohar Chadash in 1597 proudly advertises that it was based on the
hand written annotations; “found in the house of . . . Judah Gedaliah (of
blessed memory).”
MATENOT KEHUNA:
Another commentator who did similar work to Benveniste was
the author of Matenot Kehuna, R. Issachar Berman ben Naphtali Hakohen of
Szczebrzeszyn, apparently a student of R. Moshe Isserless. R. Issachar wrote in
his preface to his critical commentary[8]
on Midrash Rabbah completed in 1588:
“The copyists’ errors and
mistakes are myriad in number. If I were to count them, they would be more in
number than the sand. They are innumerable, too many for
someone to straighten what has been made crooked. The
sins [of the copyists] are many. They have wronged us, and who can comprehend
the errors?”
Marc Shapiro describes Matenot Kehuna as the text which "actually presents the peshat, the literal meaning of the midrashic text". [14]
Williams explains that “the most distinctive
transformation of the appearance of Midrash Rabbah” were the works of the
commentators Avraham ben Asher of Safed (Or haSechel) and Shmuel Yafeh
of Constantinople (Yefeh To’ar).
Until then, the Midrash Rabbah had been a single
volume. With these two commentators, Midrash Rabbah became a multi
volume compendium.
The reason why these two editions grew so enormously was
because, instead of occasional corrections to difficult texts such as in
Benveniste’s Ot Emet and Issachar Berman’s Matenot Kehuna – now Or
haSechel and Yefeh To’ar:
“…aimed to guide readers towards
correct and harmonious understandings of each midrash by means of extended,
discursive comments…[with][9]
the text of Midrash Rabbah surrounded by their extensive discursive
interpretations, expounding the minutiae of rabbinic discussions, questioning
their consistency, and reconciling any apparent discrepancies by means of
multiple expositions.”
UNDERSTANDING THE MOTIVATION FOR ‘GROWING’ THE MIDRASH
RABBAH:
Williams explains the intriguing reason why rabbis like Avraham
ben Asher (Or haSechel) wanted to expand the Midrash Rabbah. In
the preface to his Or haSechel, R. Avraham writes that he wanted to
introduce a contrast to the standard genre of Torah study of his era,
particularly in Safed at that time, which was Halacha (Law).
R. Avraham’s was a student of R. Yosef Karo, the author of
the code of Jewish law known as the Shulchan Aruch. He was also later
active as a Halachic decisor, serving as a rabbi in Safed, Damascus and
Aleppo and evidenced in various responsa.[10]
It seems, according to R. Avraham’s own writing, that he was ‘satiated’ with Halacha
and wanted to introduce another perhaps more entertaining aspect of literary
engagement to his study regimen. R. Avraham wrote:
“Now when I saw my brothers
and companions. . .I said to myself, ‘Come now, I will test you with pleasure,’
to feed in the gardens and to gather lilies. Let us go forth into the field to
gather the lights of the sayings of the rabbis…”[11]
This view may have been reflected in the writing of R. Moshe
Alshich (1508-1593) in the preface to his commentary on the Torah. He complains
that his study schedule is almost entirely dominated by Halachic matters
and that he only has time to look at Midrashic matters on Fridays in
preparation for his Shabbat sermon:
“From my childhood the
extensive study of the Talmud in the yeshiva nurtured me … thrusting and
parrying in the disputes of Abbaye and Rava … speculative analysis [iyun] by
night and [talmudic] halakhah by day … thereafter [turning] to the posekim
until sunset, replying according to the halakhah to those who ask what is
relevant …
I only appointed a fixed time
for [the exposition of] midrashic and plain explanations when the Lord sent me
good fortune … and lightened me with time to find rest … from halakhah on the
sixth day. For every sabbath the people would come to me to expound to them
according to the Torah, the Holy Scriptures, which they would read, each
parashah at the appointed time.”[12]
For both R. Abraham ben Asher and Moses Alshich, it seems
that excursions into Midrash provided what Williams refers to as:
“a felicitous side-track in a
curriculum otherwise devoted to halakhic enquiry.”
This “side-track” was not insignificant because R. Avraham,
through his Or haSechel, was attempting to a bolster if not create a new
and serious genre of Torah study:
“To this end, he undertook to
provide a new edition of Midrash Rabbah in which the text was surrounded by
commentary. He thereby sought to promote and facilitate the detailed study of
the Midrash and to uphold Midrash Rabbah as a weighty and authoritative work
requiring thorough investigation with the guidance of learned commentators.”
R. Shmuel Yafe, in a similar fashion through his Yefeh
To’ar, wrote:
“When I came to the threshold
of the gates of Midrash Rabbah on the Torah, the father of all collections of
aggadic Midrash, I found the door locked, as I found no interpretation except
for the briefest pamphlet of difficult words derived from the Arukh. And even
though some writers adduced some section of this midrash in their homilies …
not even one out of sixty aggadot was cited. As for those which were mentioned,
they were not careful to explain the true meaning of the text, but rather
explained its general sense according to the lesson they wanted to get across,
even if it were for rhetorical use.”
These rabbis were attempting to publicise and elevate the
status, seriousness and importance of studying Midrash Rabbah by
producing volumes of copious commentary to the work.
Williams sums up the novel contribution of Or haSechel
and Yefeh To’ar:
“In publishing their
commentaries as part of new editions of the text of Midrash Rabbah itself,
their concerns intersected with a wider desire to add to books of Midrash
Rabbah every resource needed by the reader to understand the midrashim
correctly.”
ANALYSIS:
An interesting dynamic had developed. The earlier
Constantinople printers freely and flexibly compiled their first edition of Midrash
Rabbah from the ten Midrashim originating in somewhat random manuscripts.
For this they were criticised. The rabbis who followed, instead of seeking out
more authoritative manuscripts and starting afresh to collate a new and perhaps
more accurate anthology of Midrashim, seemed content to rely on what was
already printed and even consolidated those very printed editions by their
extensive commentaries, and brought the study of Midrash to a level not
seen before.
To illustrate how the Midrash Rabbah began to grow in
size, consider that the entire early edition printed in Venice in 1545 had
about 300 folios. Issachar Berman’s edition (Matenot Kehuna) had 430
folios. The Avraham ben Asher (Or haSechel) and Shmuel Yafeh (Yefeh
To’ar) commentary - just on Bereishit Rabbah alone – numbered 190
and 540 folios respectively!
One wonders why there were no attempts to rather reconstruct
the foundational text of Midrash Rabbah based on sound manuscripts - instead
of expounding on the problematic printed material that all the commentators
themselves had already clearly acknowledged.
This, especially in light of R. Issachar Berman’s (Matenot
Kehuna) criticisms of the printed Midrash Rabbah whose mistakes, as mentioned earlier, were
“too many for someone to straighten what has been
made crooked”.[13]
FURTHER READING:
Kotzk
Blog: 211) THE CHALLENGE OF MIDRASHIC AMPLIFICATION:
Kotzk
Blog: 282) TWO DIVERSE MIDRASHIC CONCEPTIONS OF GOD:
Kotzk
Blog: 175) RABBEINU NISSIM OF MARSEILLES – ONE OF THE MOST RADICAL OF ALL THE
COMMENTATORS:
[1] These
include the ten Midrashic works whose titles end with Rabbah, such
as Bereishit Rabbah, Shemot Rabbah, Vayikra Rabbah, Bemidbar Rabbah, Devarim
Rabbah, Shir haShirim Rabbah, Ruth Rabbah, Esther Rabbah, Eicha Rabbah and
Kohelet Rabbah.
[2] The
various Midrashic works had existed as separate units and were sometimes
joined with other Aggadic manuscripts making a mix of Rabbah
Midrashim and Mekhilta deRabi Yishma’el, Sifra and Sifrei.
But Midrash Rabbah was the first time that then ten “Rabbah” groups
were collated as one anthology.
[3]
Benjamin Williams, 2003, The Ingathering of Midrash Rabba: A Moment of
Creativity and Innovation.
[4] See
the preface to Naphtali Hertz, Perush leMidrash Chamesh Megilot Rabbah
(Kraków, 1569), 2a, and Abraham b. Asher, Or haSechel (Venice, 1567),
1a.
[5] Emend
means to correct, while amend means to change or modify.
[6] Ot
Emet, 3a.
[7] Benveniste,
Ot Emet, 2a.
[8] “His Mattenot
Kehunnah (completed in 1584, printed in 1587–88) was a critical
edition of the Midrash Rabbah with commentary. It became among
the most influential works on the Midrash Rabbah, and has been
included in almost every edition on account of its textual accuracy and the
clear, concise manner in which it explains the simple/straightforward meaning
of the text. He put great effort into determining and preserving the correct
wording of the text, making use of multiple texts, both printed and manuscript,
to determine the most accurate wording, and insisting that the printers take
care not to introduce new errors. He also sought out individuals familiar with
other languages such as Arabic and Latin to clarify certain points where
foreign words were used; however, it appears that the information he received
was not always so accurate.” (Wikipedia).
[9]
Parenthesis mine.
[10] Or
haSechel 1b.
[11] Or
haSechel 1b.
[12] Moshe
Alshich, Torat Mosheh (Venice, 1601) 1b.
[13]
Perhaps there is some significance in the fact that R. Avraham ben Asher (Or
haSechel) was a student of the Mechaber R. Yosef Karo – and R.
Issachar Berman (Matenot Kehuna) was a student of the Ramah R.
Moshe Isserless. There may have been some form of ‘rivalry’ between the two.
In R. Yosef Karo’s mystical diary, Maggid Meisharim, his Maggid or “angelic being”, encouraged R. Karo to finish his book as soon as possible, before a ‘certain’ Rabbi in Krakow would finish his. This rabbi was R. Moshe Isserless (1530 -1572) who wrote a parallel work for Askenazim, which corresponded to R. Karo’s work which was created for Sephardim. According to this account, there appears to have been some rivalry between the two. [See Kotzk Blog: 153) A MYSTICAL SIDE TO R. YOSEF KARO:]
This rivalry may have been perpetuated by their students R. Avraham ben Asher and R. Issachar Berman - and thus the former did what the latter said could not be done.
[14] Marc. B Shapiro, The Limits of Orthodox Theology, The Littman Library of Jewish Civilization in association with Liverpool University Press; 1st edition (August 25, 2011), 99.
No comments:
Post a Comment