Yadin, Azzan, “4QMMT, Rabbi Ishmael, and the Origins of Legal Midrash”, Dead Sea Discoveries 10,1 (2003), 129-149.
summarizes some of A Shremer article “they didn't read the sealed book”.
Qumranites called to “return to the torah of Moses” against the “dorshey chalakot” which is a pan on “dorshey halachot”.
Pharisees had a paradosis, a non-scriptural halakha, and the rabbis (tannaim) tried to connect it to the scripture.
Azzan criticizes Shremer for seeing rabbinic culture as unified.
He will show similarities between R. Yishmael's halakha to the MMT's.
p. 133
R. Ishmael and the marginalization of extra-scriptural tradition
R. Ishmael's statement that “in three places halakha bypasses the scripture” means (as in other occurrences of such an expression about three cases) that in all other cases halakha is supporting/supported [by] the scripture.
Also: halakha here means “to Moses from Sinai”.
The fact that this occurs in only three cases, is marginalizing the extra-scriptural halakha.
This is problematic, since oral-torah is accepted as rabbinic identity marker.
But in R. Ishmael's midrashim there is no extra-scriptural halakha, except the three cases mentioned above, as opposed to Akivian midrash which cites many such halakhot.
R. Ishmael never cites another rabbi from whom he learned a halakha [in the mishna and tosefta].
The talmud mentions a teacher to R. Ishmael – R. Nehunia ben Haqana, who taught R. Ishmael exegetical technique (kelal ufrat), and not extra-biblical traditions.
D. Halivi thinks that there was not Mishna of the school of R. Ishmael.
So: R. Ishmael does not transmit extra-scriptural traditions. He has not [non exegetical] teachers, and his school did not produce non-midrashic compositions.
Will show cases of expressions which in Akivian compositions mean extra-biblical traditions, and in the Ishmaelites mean biblical ones.
a. shma.
In akivian tradition: if a man commits five sexual offenses in one bout of forgetfulness, does each count separately? The answer: we didn't hear about these particular offences, but we heard (an extra biblical tradition) about others, and it is analogous to the cases you mentioned.
In Ishmaelian tradition: in the Mekhilta the words “we didn't hear” refer to scriptural exegesis.
b.
dispute between Hillel and shamai about a testimony of a woman who returned from abroad regarding her husband's death.
The house of shammai accepts her testimony, because sages spoke about a similar case (a woman who returns from the harvest).
In the mekhilta – a similar formula is used but with regard to the scripture and not to what sages said.
c. stam
in the mishna it is what was heard from sages without explanation. In Ishmaelite midrashim stam refers to scriptural statement made without explication.
d. leqayem (to establish)
in the mishna it refers to explanation of extra-biblical tradition “leqayem divrei chakhamim”. In Ishmaelite midrashim the same verb refers to an interpretation which supports a biblical verse
Other cases where in the Mishna we have “we didn't hear” (in a case of a woman coming from abroad testifying for the death of her husband refers to earlier sages, and in the Mekhilta it refers to a verse.
p. 140
R. Ishmael is closer to Qumran's דורשי התורה than to the דורשי הלכות/חלקות.
Rabbi Ishmael and Priesthood
It is recognized that R. Ishmael is from a priestly origin (in the Tosefta [T. Hal. 1:10] he swears by the priestly garb of his father; and it appears also in amoraic sources). A summary of all the sources/traditions is in Porton, The Traditions of Rabbi Ishmael, Brill 1982
Geiger supports the view that R. Ishmael was priestly; he argues that Ishmael represents an older halakhic tradition that was overlaid with the new Aqivan one. Hirshman also supports this opinion (tora lekhol baei olam), who worked primarily with aggadic material. The universalistic view of the torah stems, says hirshman, from the ishmaelic school, which had its roots in second temple priesthood.
Yadin claims that Ishmael was priestly and rabbinic, and this explains the marginalization of extra-scriptural halakha in his Makita and sifre. This also explains Ishmael's closeness to Qumran in general, and MMT in particular.
He will show it by the shared legal traditions, the term “katuv” and the addressee of MMT.
Shared legal tradition:
a. the first fruit is for the priests in MMT 62-63 and sifre numbers 5 (Horovits, 8)
b. non-ritualistic slaughter should be in Jerusalem according to MMT (B 25-280). Ishmael and Aqiva argued about it, Ishmael siding (with MMT) that it is forbidden to eat Hulin, while Aqiva claimed that it was made allowed in the desert, and the prohibition concerns only the Qedashim.
c. MMT prohibits the slaughter of pregnant animals; the status of the embryo is the issue at stake. R. Ishmael and Qumran claim that the embryo is an animal for itself (as opposed to others). (this is following E. Eshel's analysis).
d. concerning an impure person who baptized, the level of his purity (following Kister's analysis): R. Ishmael and Qumran agree.
The role of Katuv
(after Qimron): the word katuv in MMT does not introduce a scriptural citation, and in the mishna it does. It is not always true about the mishna. Even bacher makes a mistake when saying that “hakatuv” and “amra torah” are synonymous. Only the latter precedes a biblical quote. Hakatuv refers to heqqesh (analogy).
In rabbi Ishmael midrashim “hakatuv” does not introduce a biblical quote, but an alternative or a hermeneutical move. In MMT the word hakatuv functions in the same manner.
Addressees of MMT
who are the “you” of MMT. The you are priests, but the legal positions attributed to this group largely correspond to he Pharisees positions recorded in the Mishna. Probably a priestly group which was sympathetic toward Pharisaic rabbinic circles, forerunners of the school of R. Ishmael?
