Ishmael ben Elisha

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rabbinical Eras

Ishmael ben Elisha (90-135 CE, commonly known as 'Rabbi Ishmael', Hebrew: רבי ישמעאל) was a Tanna of the first and second centuries (third tannaitic generation). A Tanna (plural, Tannaim) is a Jewish rabbinic sage whose views are recorded in the Mishnah.

Contents

[edit] Life

Ishmael was a descendant of a wealthy priestly family in Upper Galilee (Tosefta, Hallah, i. 10; Bava Kamma, 80a; compare Rabbinovicz, "Diḳduḳe Soferim," ad loc.; Hullin, 49a), and presumably the grandson of the high priest of the same name. As a youth, he was carried away by the Romans, but Joshua ben Hananiah, succeeding in purchasing his liberty, restored him to Judea, where he rapidly developed him into an accomplished scholar (Tosef., Horayot, ii. 5; Gittin, 58a). Of his teachers, only Nehunya ben ha-Kanah is expressly mentioned (Shevi'it, 26a), but he doubtless learned much from his benefactor, between whom and himself grew up a close friendship; Joshua called him "brother" (Avodah Zarah, ii. 5; Tosefta, Parah, x. [ix.] 3), a term by which he was afterward known to his colleagues (Yadayim, iv. 3; Sanhedrin, 51b).

Ishmael was one of the prominent members of the Sanhedrin at Yavneh (Eduyot, ii. 4), and when that august body was forced by circumstances to move to Usha, Ishmael attended its sessions there (Bava Batra, 28b), though his residence was at Kefar 'Aziz, on the borders of Idumæa, where Joshua ben Hananiah once visited him (Kil'ayim, vi. 4; Ketubot, v. 8).

In the book, " 'The Written' as the Vocation of Conceiving Jewishly," [McGinley, 2006] there is an interesting, albeit controversial, hypothesis offered concerning the historical identity of Rabbi Ishmael. The suggestion offered there is that "Rabbi Ishmael ben Elisha" is a Rabbinic cognomen for the famous and officially discredited tannaitic apostate, Elisha ben Abbuyah. The contention is that through this ruse the Rabbis were able to give expression to the vast halakhic and hermeneutic rulings and achievments of the otherwise discredited "Akher." The argument entails the reading of the famous aggadah (Gittin, 58b) by which Rabbi Joshua liberated the young "Rabbi Ishmael" from Roman imprisonment as a "mashal" by which this device of a cover name for the discredited Akher could function as an manner of referring to the vast body of teachings of this Elisha ben Abuyah while at the same time not directly honoring the discredited Akher. The vignette has Rabbi Joshua asking the "imprisoned" young man the question of Isaiah 42:24 and receiving from the "imprisoned" Ishmael the repentant answer which constitutes the rest of that verse. Further the dual character of the 42:24 text which Joshua is presented as choosing is intriguing. The wrong of the one, here called "Israel" there called "Jacob," of the prophet's words (with consequences for being unfaithful to Hashem) seems to point to the redactor's implication that Joshua and "Ishmael" carry shared paradigmatic responsibility for the multi-faceted wrong, and its respective consequences, brought about "on that day" which so cruelly injured the Rabbinic Movement.

In the author's other book of 2006 [pages 308-310] it is argued that the aggadah in the Babylonian Talmud [at 15b] concerning Rabbi Judah ha-Nasi and an alleged appearance of Akher's daughter before him asking for charity is likewise a "mashal" by which it is indicated that Rabbinic officialdom came to finally endorse Rabbi Joshua's suggestion concerning a cognomen for Akher. This overall hypothesis about the true identity of Rabbi Ishmael brings with it a radically innovative approach for understanding the relationship between "The School of Aqiba" and the "School of Ishmael" in the earliest strata of the Halakhic Midrashim produced in the decades immediately following upon the destruction of the Temple.

[edit] Disposition

Ishmael's teachings were calculated to promote peace and goodwill among all. "Be indulgent with the hoary head;" he would say, "and be kind to the black-haired [the young]; and meet every man with a friendly mien" (Avot, iii. 12).

What he taught he practised. Even toward strangers, he acted considerately. When a heathen greeted him, he answered kindly, "Thy reward has been predicted"; when another abused him, he repeated cooly, "Thy reward has been predicted." This apparent inconsistency, he explained to his puzzled disciples by quoting Gen. xxvii. 29: "Cursed be every one that curseth thee, and blessed be he that blesseth thee" (Yerushalmi Berakhot, viii. 12a; Gen. R. lxvi. 6).

Ismael was fatherly to the indigent, particularly to poor and plain maidens, whom he clothed attractively and provided with means, so that they might obtain husbands (Nedarim, ix. 10; 66a). One Friday night, while absorbed in the study of the Bible, he inadvertently turned the wick of a lamp; and he vowed that when the Second Temple was rebuilt, he would offer there an expiatory sacrifice (Shabbat, 12b).

[edit] Views on marriage

Ishmael manifested the same spirit of hope in declining to countenance the refusal of the ultra-patriotic to beget children under the Roman sway (Tosefta, Sotah, xv. 10; Bava Batra, 60b). Even under the conditions then existing, he recommended early marriage. He said, "The Scripture tells us, 'Thou shalt teach them [the things thou hast seen at Horeb] to thy sons and to thy sons' sons;' and how may one live to teach his sons' sons unless one marries early?" (Deuteronomy 4:9 Yerushalmi Kiddushin, i. 29b; Kiddushin 61a)

[edit] Halakhic exegesis

Ishmael gradually developed a system of halakhic exegesis which, while running parallel with that of Rabbi Akiva, is admitted to be the more logical. Indeed, he established the principles of the logical method by which laws may be deduced from laws and important decisions founded on the plain phraseology of the Scriptures. Like Akiva, he opened up a wide field for halakhic induction, but, unlike Akiva, he required more than a mere jot or a letter as a basis for making important rulings (Sanhedrin, 51b).

Ishmael was of opinion that the Torah was conveyed in the language of man (Yerushalmi Yevamot, viii. 8d; Yerushalmi Nedarim, i. 36c), and that therefore a seemingly pleonastic word or syllable can not be taken as a basis for new deductions. In discussing a supposititious case with Akiva, he once exclaimed, "Wilt thou indeed decree death by fire on the strength of a single letter?" (Sanhedrin, 51b). The plain sense of the Scriptural text, irrespective of its verbal figures, was by him considered the only safe guide.

[edit] Hermeneutic rules

To consistently carry out his views in this direction, Ishmael formalized a set of 13 hermeneutic rules by which halakha was derived from the Torah. As a basis for these rules he took the seven rules of Hillel, and on them built up his own system, which he elaborated and strengthened by illustrating them with examples taken from the Scriptures (see Baraita of R. Ishmael; Talmud; comp. Gen. R. xcii. 7). Even these rules, he would not permit to apply to important questions, such as capital cases in which no express Scriptural warrant for punishment existed; he would not consent to attach a sentence of death, or even a fine, to a crime or misdemeanor on the strength of a mere inference, however logical, where no such punishment is clearly stated in Scripture (Yerushalmi Avodah Zarah, v. 45b), or to draw a rule from a law itself based on an inference (Yerushalmi Kiddushin, i. 59a). His rules were universally adopted by his successors, tannaim, as well as amoraim, although occasionally he himself was forced to deviate from them (see Sifre, Numbers, 32).

Thus, his name became permanently associated with the halakha; but in the province of the Haggadah also, it occupies a prominent place (Mo'ed Katan, 28b). In answer to the question whether future punishment will be limited to the spirit or to the body, or whether in equity, any punishment at all should be inflicted on either, seeing that neither can sin when separated from the other, Ishmael draws this parallel:

A king, owning a beautiful orchard of luscious fruit, and not knowing whom to trust in it, appointed two invalids — one lame, and the other blind. The lame one, however, tempted by the precious fruit, suggested to his blind companion that he ascend a tree and pluck some; but the latter pointed to his sightless eyes. At last the blind man raised his lame companion on his shoulders, and thus enabled him to pluck some of the fruit.
When the king came, noticing that some fruit had disappeared, he inquired of them which was the thief. Vehemently asserting his innocence, each pointed to the defect which made it impossible for him to have committed the theft. But the king guessed the truth, and, placing the lame man on the shoulders of the other, punished them together as if the two formed one complete body. Thus, added Ishmael, will it be hereafter: soul and body will be reunited and punished together (Lev. R., iv. 5; compare Sanhedrin, 91a et seq.).

Ishmael laid the foundation for the halakhic midrash on Exodus, the Mekhilta; and a considerable portion of the similar midrash, the Sifre on Numbers, appears also to have originated with him or in his school, known as "Debe R. Ishmael". Some suppose that he was among the martyrs of Betar (compare Avot of Rabbi Natan, xxxviii. [ed. Schechter, p. 56b]). The more generally received opinion, however, is that one of the martyrs, a high priest, was a namesake (Nedarim, ix. 10).

[edit] External links

[edit] References

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../i/s/h/Ishmael_ben_Elisha_d2b5.html"
In other languages