Pirkei De-Rabbi Eliezer: Difference between revisions

'''Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer''' ({{lang-tmr|פִּרְקֵי דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר|translit=pirqe də-rabbi ʾeliʿezer}}, 'Chapters of Rabbi Eliezer'; abbreviated {{Lang|he|פדר״א}}, 'PRE') is an [[aggadic-midrashic]] work of [[Torah]] exegesis and retellings of biblical stories. Traditionally, the work is attributed to the [[Tannaim|tanna]] [[Eliezer ben Hurcanus]] and his school. Modern research suggests that the text is [[Pseudepigrapha|pseudepigraphic]] from the [[Geonim|Geonic period]] of the eighth century, written in or near the [[Land of Israel]].

==The First Chapterschapters and Attributionattribution to Eliezer==

Medieval scholarly texts also referred to ''Pirkei De-Rabbi Eliezer'' as "''Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer HaGadol'' and as ''[[Baraita]] DeRabbi Eliezer''. Whereas medieval scholars attributed the work to the Tanna Eliezer ben Hyrcanus, [[Abraham Zacuto]] wrote, "it is well known that although it is attributed to Rabbi Eliezer, it was written by later generations".<ref>Sefer Yuchasin, First Part, Aleph-Bet, Letter Aleph.</ref> Subsequently, research by [[Leopold Zunz]] claims that ''Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer'' is an even later pseudepigraphic work. The first two chapters of the work are dedicated to the story of Eliezer ben Hyrcanus's approach to Torah, serving as an introduction to the work and providing background about the author. These chapters are derived from ''[[Avot de-Rabbi Natan]]'', Version B, Chapter 13, and their originality in ''Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer'' is a matter of scholarly debate. Many researchers speculate that these chapters are a later addition and not original to the [[Midrash]].This hypothesis is based on evidence from the [[Cairo Geniza]], where a list of books includes a manuscript in which the midrash begins at Chapter 3. Additionally, in one manuscript, the title of the midrash appears only in Chapter 3. According to this hypothesis, there is no internal evidence in the midrash itself to attribute it specifically to Eliezer, and the name "''Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer''" was given because he is the first sage mentioned at the beginning of Chapter 3, "Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus opened...", as it was customary to name works after the first sage mentioned in them.<ref>M.B. Lerner, "Studies in a List of Books from the Geniza," Te'uda 1 (1980), p. 49 (in Hebrew) </ref><ref>Kister, "Studies in Avot DeRabbi Nathan," p. 15 (in Hebrew)</ref> Eliezer Treitl disagrees with this view and believes that the chapters should not be excluded from the canon for two reasons: These chapters appear in all the complete manuscripts of the work that exist; the language of the chapters slightly differs from their source in Avot DeRabbi Natan in a way that suits the unique language and stylistic nuances of ''Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer''.<ref>Treitl, "''Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer''," p. 25-26. (in Hebrew).</ref>

==The Time and Placeplace of the Compositioncomposition==

Thus, the work was not written before the end of the seventh century. The opening passage of Chapter 3 appears in the letter of [[Pirqoi ben Baboi]],<ref>[{{cite web | url=https://maagarim.hebrew-academy.org.il/Pages/PMain.aspx?mishibbur=860000&page=3] | title=תשובות - פירקוי בן באבוי &#124; מפעל המילון ההיסטורי }}</ref> who operated at the end of the eighth century or the beginning of the ninth century, indicating that the work was not written after the ninth century.<ref>Ginzberg, "Genizah Studies," p. 544 (in Hebrew)</ref>

==Structure of the Composition==

===The Question of the Work's Completenesscompleteness===

As it exists today, the midrash has an incomplete structure. Whether it was written this way or whether chapters were lost over the generations is a matter of debate. [[Chaim Palagi]] wrote about its conclusion, "It seems that up to here they found, and there were more chapters but they were not seen, and may God in His mercy enlighten our eyes with the light of His Torah, the Torah of life" (Par Echad on ''Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer'' - Chapter 54). [[Leopold Zunz]] described the problem of the work's structure: first, the text (in the standard editions available to him at the time) endsis inbeing ancut impossible place –off in the middle of aan sermonissue. Additionally, he pointed out two central themes, or foundational elements, on which the author bases various chapters of the work, which are missing at their ends:

[[David Luria]] supported Zunz's hypothesis and, in the introduction to his commentary, provided over a dozen citations from PRE in the writings of medieval sages that are not found in the existing work – indicating that the work was once complete with additional chapters. According to Luria, the seven chapters of the ''Rabbi Eliezer'' that were added to ''[[Seder Eliyahu Rabbah]]'' originated from this work. The Tadal bases his suggestion on the statements of [[Eleazar of Worms]] and the author of ''[[Yalkut Shimoni]]'', who quotes from these seven chapters, sometimes referring to them as "PRE" (''Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer''). This view of Zunz and Luria that chapters and parts of the original work were lost over the generations, is very common in research. Eliezer Treitl disagrees, arguing that the work as it exists today was completed by the author in this form, and that there were never additional chapters. According to Treitl, a comprehensive examination of all the manuscripts of ''Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer'' and tracking the unique style of the work challenges the hypotheses of Zunz and Luria, and a thorough examination of the citations cited by Luria shows that most of them are not actual quotations from ''Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer''. Zunz's claim that the work ends in the middle of a sermon is based on a corrupted printed edition, printed from a manuscript with a large segment at the end missing. The segment is found in full all other complete manuscripts along with additional sermons. Regarding Zunz's claim about the missing "central themes," Treitl points out that two benedictions are also missing in the middle – the benediction of forgiveness and the benediction of redemption – making it more likely that the author himself did not complete his work. Further evidence is the benediction, "On the righteous converts" and "...who gathers the dispersed of His people Israel," found already in Chapter 10, seems out of context. The benediction should have been placed much later than the last benediction in the work, which suggests that the author planned a longer work and had already prepared this chapter in advance. However, when he could not complete his original plan, he attached the chapter to the most suitable place. Treitl argues that a hint to the claim that the work remained incomplete from its inception can be found in the sermon that concludes the work:

==Names of the Sagessages in the Workwork==

Many homilies in the work are attributed to Eliezer and various sages, some of whom lived much later than [[Eliezer ben Hyrcanus]]. David Luria, who sought to defend the traditional view attributing the work to Eliezer, argued that most of the names appearing as amoraim are actually tannaim with similar names. In his introduction and in numerous places in the body of his commentary, Luria strives to prove and justify the traditional view that sees PRE as a fundamentally tannaitic work. He attributed the work to Eliezer's academy, which operated in the generations following him, and explained the later sages' names as later additions to the work. However, Albeck strongly opposes this.<ref>Albeck, "Additions to Zunz," p. 423. (in Hebrew).</ref> Luria's view is not accepted in scholarly research. Since Leopold Zunz, these attributions are considered pseudepigraphical. For example, in Chapter 43, the midrash extensively discusses the deeds of Reish[[Resh Lakish]] and his companions and his repentance, placing words of praise for [[Resh Lakish]] in the mouth of the tanna [[Ben Azzai]], who lived three generations earlier. Another example: [[Levitas of Yavneh]] is mentioned once in the Mishnah (Avot) and no other Talmudic source, yet the midrash attributes several homilies to him that earlier sources attribute to other sages.

==Non-Talmudic Literatureliterature==

The work includes aggadic traditions descending from Second Temple period apocryphal literature. For example, in Chapter 22, ''Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer'' identifies the "sons of God" mentioned in Genesis 6:1 with the angels who fell from heaven, as commonly found in apocryphal literature (1 [[Enoch]]). This interpretation is contrary to the view of the sages, who vehemently opposed this interpretation. Albeck provides many examples of this connection in his additions to Zunz's work.<ref>Albeck, Additions to Zunz.</ref>

The legend about the expulsion of Hagar and Ishmael (Chapter 30) has a clear Islamic background, as evidenced by the names of the women [[Aisha]] (the name of [[Muhammad]]'s wife) and [[Fatima]] (the name of Muhammad's daughter), attributed by the author to Ishmael's wives. This legend has Islamic parallels, and the prevailing opinion is that its source is Islamic. Aviva Shosman suggests the story's origin is Jewish.

There are many parallels, sometimes to the point of literal similarity, between ''Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer'' and the Aramaic [[Targum of Jonathan]] to the Torah (a translation composed in the same period and region as ''Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer''), first noted by Zunz. David Luria believed that the Targum depends on our work and draws from it. Avigdor Shinan also holds this view, but Treitl shows that there are also opposite case where ''Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer'' depends on the Targum.<ref>Treitl, "''Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer''," p. 230 and onwards. (in Hebrew).</ref>

The work also has ties to early Palestinian [[piyyut]] (liturgical poetry), evident in both shared traditions and linguistic similarities.

<ref>Yosef Yahalom, "Then There Was No One," Jerusalem, 1997, pp. 46-54 (in Hebrew).</ref> For instance, the tradition mentioned in ''Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer'' (Chapter 46) that one should stand on their feet on Yom Kippur because Israel are similar to angels on this day is close to the traditions of poets [[Yannai]] and [[Eleazar Kalir]].

==External Halakhahalakha and Customcustom==

At times, the work offers traditions not found in rabbinic halakha sources. One such example is its use of homilies to criticize the new ruling power—[[Islam]]—through biblical allusions that criticize [[Ishmael]]. The fact that Ishmael was born before [[Abraham]] was circumcised serves as a tool for criticism, as seen in the homily on [[Kedoshim#Third reading—Leviticus 19:23–32|Leviticus 19:23]] in Chapter 29:

{{quote|Only the grapevine is meant by 'tree'; if they do not cut off the foreskin of the tree, all its fruits are stunted and unsightly, and its wine is disqualified from the altar. But if they cut off the foreskin of the tree, all its fruits are good-looking, and its wine is chosen for the altar. So, too, with our father Abraham: before he was circumcised, the fruit he produced was not good in deeds and was disqualified from the altar. But after he was circumcised, the fruit he produced was good in deeds and his wine was chosen for the altar, as it says 'and wine for the drink offering' (Numbers 15:5).{{cn|date=July 2024}}}}

==Legends in the Workwork==

==Style and Languagelanguage==

* The PRE sometimes uses synonymous phrases as the poets did. For example, instead of עץ (tree) in biblical language or "אילן" in rabbinic language, it prefers to say: "עץ-אילן": "A tree-tree bears fruit after its kind" (Chapter 5).

==Distribution of the Work==

"Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer" stands out among midrashic works due to its numerous manuscripts. [[The Institute of Microfilmed Hebrew Manuscripts]] in Jerusalem catalogs over a hundred manuscripts of the work, some complete and some partial. Photographs of many of these manuscripts are available there. In addition, a few Geniza fragments of PRE have survived. The many manuscripts were first examined by Lewis M. Barth, and the numerous variations between different manuscripts led him to speculate that we may have similar but not identical works gathered under the same name. According to Eliezer Treitl's philological research, the main manuscripts of the work—totaling over two dozen—are divided into three textual branches, with additional manuscripts whose connection to the different branches is unclear. Many of the manuscripts have little textual value as they were copied from various printed editions and other manuscripts.

==Editions and Translationstranslations==

PRE was translated into Latin by [[Willem Henricus Vorstius]] in 1644. An English translation based on a manuscript was published in 1916 by [[Gerald Friedlander]]. This edition which included some variant readings, commentary, and extensive references to sources and parallels from apocryphal literature. [[Marc-Alain Ouaknin]] and Eric Smilévitch translated PRE into French in 1983. Miguel Perez Fernandez translated it into Spanish in 1984. In 2004, a German translation of PRE was published in Berlin by Dagmar Börner-Klein.

* [[Haim Palachi]] of [[Izmirİzmir]] in 1880.

* Jacob Elbaum (1992): "The styleStyle, motifMotif, and subjectSubject in ''Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer''," Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Folklore, 13-14, pages 99-126 (in Hebrew)

* [[Bernhard Heller]] (1925): "Muhammedanisches und Antimuhammedanisches in den Pirke Rabbi Eliezer," Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums, 69, pages 47-54