Rabbinic literature | ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Talmudic literature | ||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
Halakhic Midrash | ||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
Aggadic Midrash | ||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
Targum | ||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer ( Jewish Babylonian Aramaic: פִּרְקֵי דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, romanized: pirqe də-rabbi ʾeliʿezer, 'Chapters of Rabbi Eliezer'; abbreviated פדר״א, 'PdRE') is an aggadic-midrashic work on the Torah containing exegesis and retellings of biblical stories.
The composition has enjoyed widespread circulation and recognition ever since its composition. It is quoted by rishonim under various names, including Pirkei Rabbi Eliezer ha-Gadol, [1] Pirkei Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus, [2] Baraita de-Rabbi Eliezer [3] and Haggadah de-Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus. [4]
Traditionally, it is ascribed to the tanna Eliezer ben Hurcanus and his disciples. Leopold Zunz has suggested that the book has had interpolations made to copies owned by private citizens in the 8th century. [5] Isaak Jost first noticed the inclusion of 8th century interpolations. According to Jewish Encyclopedia it was composed in Italy shortly after 830. [6] Scholars unanimously agree that Pirke de-Rabbi Eliezer is a work of the 8th or 9th century. [7] [8] [9] The earliest citation of it is in a fragment from Pirqoi ben Baboi. [10]
The work is divided into 54 chapters, which may be divided into seven groups, as follows:
Many ancient customs that are not found in other sources are described in this work. [12]
The following Jewish customs and laws are referred to in the Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer:
The following chapters close with benedictions from Shemoneh Esreh:
Chapters 17, 30, 31, 46, 51, 52, 54 also remind one of Shemoneh Esreh.
The work includes astronomical discussions related to the story of the Creation. It dwells longest on the description of the second day of Creation, in which the chariot of Ezekiel 1 is described in various forms, and although this passage recalls Shabbethai Donnolo and the Alphabet of Rabbi Akiva, it is evidently much older, since it does not mention the Hekalot. This description is connected with that of the creation of the seven planets and the twelve signs of the zodiac, the reference to the "machzors" and the "tekufot," and the discussion of the intercalation. In the series of years (3, 6, 8, 11, 14, 17, 19 in the cycle of 19) in which the intercalation takes place, the author substitutes the fifth year for the sixth. His cycle of the moon, furthermore, covers 21 years, at the end of which period the moon again occupies the same position in the week as at the beginning, but this can happen only once in 689,472 years, according to the common computation.
The composition date of Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer is generally put towards the end of the 8th- and beginning of the 9th century. [13] [14] [15] [16] The text itself attributes the authorship of the text to Tannaim such as Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus, Shimon bar Yochai, and Judah bar Ilai. [17]
The author seems to have been a rabbi of the Land of Israel. This appears not only from the fact that some of the customs to which he refers (in chapters 13 and 20) are known only as customs of the Land of Israel, but also from the fact that nearly all the authorities quoted are from the Land of Israel (the exceptions being Rav Mesharshiya and Rav Shemaiah, who are from Babylonia). The work is traditionally ascribed to R. Eliezer (80-118 C.E.), but in fact cannot have been written by him. [18] Several sources quoted in it were composed after Eliezer's death, including Pirkei Avot and quotes from several 3rd-century Talmudic authorities, [19] indicating that the work was edited or additions were made to it after the time of R. Eliezer.
Jost was the first to point out that in the 30th chapter, there is a clear allusion to the three stages of the Muslim conquest - that of Arabia (משא בערב), of Spain (איי הים), and of Rome (830 C.E.; כרך גדול רומי); [20] also the names of Fatima and Ayesha occur beside that of Ishmael, [21] leading to the conclusion that the book originated in a time when Islam was predominant in Asia Minor. [22] In chapter 36 two brothers reigning simultaneously are mentioned, after whose reign the Messiah shall come; this might place the work in the beginning of the ninth century, for about that time the two sons of Harun al-Rashid ( al-Amin and al-Ma'mun) were ruling over the Islamic realm. [22]
If a statement in chapter 28 did not point to an even earlier date, approximately the same date might be inferred from the enumeration of the four powerful kingdoms and the substitution of Ishmael for one of the four which are enumerated in the Talmud and the Mekhilta. [22]
However, the interpolation may have no effect upon the contested connection between this text and the Qur'an [23] which receives two separate 1st century attributions within the text, within a 100 word span. [17] According to the most recent research by N.A. Stillman [24] & B. Wheeler, [25] what was once thought to have been a Jewish-midrashic influence on Islam is, due to recent research, the reverse. Thus N.A. Stillman comes to the conclusion:
Our chronology of rabbanic literature is better today than in Geiger's, and many more texts - Muslim, Jewish, and Christian - have since being published. In the light of this we know now that in some instances what was thought to be a Jewish haggadic influence in an Islamic text might well be quite the reverse. The Pirqe de Rabbi Eli`ezer, for example, would seem to have been finally redacted after the advent of Islam. [26]
He further adds that one should be cautious when it comes to assigning origins to the Quran: "In conclusion, it should be emphasized that one should be extremely cautious about assigning specific origins to the story discussed here - or for that matter, any other story in the Qur'an". [27] Some Rishonim, such as Meir ben Solomon Abi-Sahula adopted a kabbalistic approach to the text. [28]
The topic of chapters one and two of the composition is the beginnings of Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrkanus; it is due to them that medieval sages attributed the entire work to him. However, Zunz conclusively proved that this traditional ascription is not historically accurate. Based on an ancient list of works found in the Cairo Genizah, scholars have posited that these chapters were transferred to PdRE from Avot de-Rabbi Natan (version II, chapter 13), and that they were not originally part of the composition that we now call PdRE. This is further proved by one manuscript which places the title “Pirkei R. Eliezer ben Hyrkanus” and begins the chapter numbering only after chapter two. Nevertheless, it is critical to note that both chapters are found in all full manuscripts of the composition, which increases the likelihood that they have always been part of the composition. Furthermore, examination of the language of these chapters also points to the fact that these chapters are properly considered part of the composition. PdRE contains distinct literary phrases which appear and reappear throughout the entire work. Despite the fact that the core language of these two chapters is almost identical to that found in Avot de-Rabbi Natan, a unique phrase found in PdRE, absent from the parallel in Avot de-Rabbi Natan, is present here as well. [ citation needed]
Zunz detected two literary structures around which the work is organized, but which are incomplete in the work as it is known to us today:
Both of these phenomena may indicate that the work was never actually completed by its author. Zunz also raised another possibility: that the work was at one point complete, but that parts of it were lost in its early period. This suggestion has found widespread acceptance among scholars, who overwhelmingly agree that the composition as it is in our hands is missing pieces that were once in existence. Rabbi David Luria (1798-1855), the most important traditional commentator on PdRE, and others scrutinized other rabbinic compositions to find chapters and quotes that were originally part of PdRE and were lost in its later transmission. However, subsequent analysis by Treitl has usually demonstrated that the ascription of these pieces of other works to a more original PdRE is without basis. As far as the claim that the structure of PdRE shows signs that parts of the composition are missing, Treitl's examination demonstrates that when it comes to the conclusion of chapters with blessings from the Shemoneh Esreh, the structure is fundamentally defective and was at no point complete. No textual witness includes the blessing for forgiveness or redemption (and Zunz completed them based on his own conjecture), and the blessings over sanctity and health appear in only some textual witnesses. Chapter 10 concludes with a reference to the blessing for converts, making it clearly out of place within the larger composition, which only begins referring to the blessings in chapter 26. It seems therefore likely that the author of the work never succeeded in weaving all of the various blessings into the work in their correct order. This leads to a suggestion that rather than assuming the existence of chapters that were once part of the work and somehow disappeared, there is a greater likelihood that the author never successfully completed his work.
The passage that concludes the composition in all of the complete manuscripts may be interpreted as referring to this situation. In this passage the author praises Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, describing them as diligent workers who receive their wages after their work has been completed. In contrast, he describes the generation of their offspring as lazy workers who request their wages out of mercy, before they even complete their work (this passage as well as other passages at the end of the concluding chapter are missing from the editio princeps, because the manuscript upon which the editio princeps is based was missing the last page.) Treitl suggests that, by ending the work with this exegesis the author wished to hint that by laying down his pen before his work is truly completed he too is one of these “lazy” offspring.
There are over one hundred known manuscripts of the work. All surviving manuscripts contain some of the same common errors, whose origins lie in a proto-tradition from which all existent manuscripts ultimately stem. Despite the antiquity of this proto-tradition it is still not identical with the composition as it was created by the author.
The textual witnesses can be divided into three groupings. Along with the complete and lengthy manuscripts, a number of partial manuscripts and genizah fragments have survived. Most of these can be classified as belonging to one of the main textual groupings.
Manuscripts of PdRE are found at Parma (No. 541), in the Vatican (No. 303; dated 1509), and in the Halberstam library. The following editions are known: Constantinople, 1518; Venice, 1548; Sabbioneta, 1568; Amsterdam, 1712; Wilna, 1837; Lemberg, 1864. A commentary upon it (by David Luria) is included in the Vilna edition, and another (by Abraham Broydé) in the Lemberg edition.
On the connection of PdRE with the Baraita of Samuel, see S. Sachs. [29]
Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer: Haggadic-midrashic work on Genesis, part of Exodus, and a few sentences of Numbers; ascribed to R. Eliezer b. Hyrcanus, and composed in Italy shortly after 833.
{{
cite web}}
: Check |url=
value (
help)
In no case can this work be ascribed to Rabbi Eliezer
Our chronology of rabbanic literature is better today than in Geiger's, and many more texts - Muslim, Jewish, and Christian - have since being published. In the light of this we know now that in some instances what was thought to be a Jewish haggadic influence in an Islamic text might well be quite the reverse. The Pirqe de Rabbi Eli`ezer, for example, would seem to have been finally redacted after the advent of Islam.
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (
link)
This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Joseph Jacobs and Schulim Ochser (1901–1906). "Pirke De-Rabbi Eliezer". In Singer, Isidore; et al. (eds.). The Jewish Encyclopedia. New York: Funk & Wagnalls.