The legend about offering the Torah to the nations of the world and its alternative in the Tannaitic Midrashim and Amoraic Homilies from the land of Israel
Marc Hirshman has shown that there is a significant difference between the short version of the legend about offering the Torah to the nations of the world ( Mekhilta deRabbi Ishmael, Bachodesh , Ch. 1) and the long version (Ch. 5). While the short version is universalistic and based on the assumpti...
| Subtitles: | האגדה על הצעת התורה לאומות העולם והאלטרנטיבה שהועלתה לה במדרשי התנאים ובדרשה אמוראית ארץ ישראלית |
|---|---|
| Main Author: | |
| Format: | Print Article |
| Language: | Hebrew |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
College
[2015]
|
| In: |
Hebrew Union College annual / Jewish Institute of Religion
Year: 2013, Volume: 84/85, Pages: 1-29 |
| Standardized Subjects / Keyword chains: | B
Torah
/ Mekhilta of R. Ishmael
/ Midrash
/ Judaism
/ Mekhilta of R. Simeon ben Yoḥai
|
| IxTheo Classification: | BH Judaism |
| Summary: | Marc Hirshman has shown that there is a significant difference between the short version of the legend about offering the Torah to the nations of the world ( Mekhilta deRabbi Ishmael, Bachodesh , Ch. 1) and the long version (Ch. 5). While the short version is universalistic and based on the assumption that Torah was designated for all nations, the long version lacks this universal aim. Distinguishing between the long version itself and the editorial additions to it in the Mekhilta , I claim that according to the (early amoraic) editorial layer, the aim of the legend is to justify God and prove that he acted fairly when he gave the Torah to Israel and not to the nations. But there is an alternative to these two versions that can be uncovered by differentiating the layers of the legend at the beginning of b. Avodah Zarah . According to the alternative legend, God did not give the Torah to the gentiles because they failed to keep the basic seven Noahide laws. I suggest that this midrashic alternative reflects an edited version of early traditions. In the case of the Mekhilta deRabbi Ishmael , the editor took an early tradition regarding the Noahide laws and integrated it as an alternative to the story of the offering of the Torah to all the nations. In the case of the Mekhilta deRabbi Shimon Bar Yochai , the editor changed the short version of the legend by omitting the offer to the nations and adding the explanation of their failure to keep the seven Noahide laws. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 0360-9049 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion, Hebrew Union College annual / Jewish Institute of Religion
|