JUDAICA - Wisdom In Torah

araita de-melekhet ha-mishkan
to refer to a particular corpus of supplementary halakhic traditions
(Meg. 28b, Kid. 49b, Sanh. 86a, Shavu. 41b), or perhaps
even a particular literary work – like our Tosefta (see
*Tosefta). As a result it may no longer have been able to serve
as a “generic term” – as the name for an entire category of individual
literary sources as well as a name for the individual
sources themselves.
Bibliography: B.M. Lewin (ed.), Iggeret R. Sherira Ga’on
(1921), 6, 27, 34–47; Malachi b. Jacob, Yad Malakhi (18562); N. Krochmal,
Moreh Nevukhei ha-Zeman (1928), ch. 73; idem, in: He-Ḥalutz,
3 (1856), 110–31; Weiss, Dor, vol. 2, 239–58; Halevy, Dorot, 2 (1923),
114–52, 162–216; Ch. Albeck, Meḥkarim ba-Baraita… (1944); M. Higger,
Oẓar ha-Beraitot (1948), 9–134; Epstein, Mishnah (1948), 30–63,
171–4, 673–706, 726–803, 1291; Bacher, in: Yerushalayim, 10 (1913),
59–82; Bacher, Trad; E.Z. Melamed, in: Sefer ha-Zikkaron M.Z. Ilan
(1959), 71–84; Neusner, in: PAAJR, 30 (1962), 79–127; Add. Bibliography:
Danzig, in: Sinai, 85 (1979), 217–24; Sh. Friedman,
Tosefta Atiqta (2002), idem, in: D. Boyarin (ed.), Ateret le-Ḥayyim
(2000), 163–201; idem, in: Y. Elman et al. (eds.), Neti’ot le-David
(2004), 195–274.
[Stephen G. Wald (2nd ed.)]
BARAITA DE-MELEKHET HA-MISHKAN (On the Building
of the Tabernacle), ancient collection containing 14 chapters,
giving a description of the building of the Tabernacle.
The baraita is quoted by early authorities, including Hai Gaon,
Rashi, the tosafists, and Naḥmanides, under the name Baraita
de-Melekhet ha-Mishkan or Mishnat Melekhet ha-Mishkan.
It is written in mishnaic Hebrew and contains practically no
later additions. The sages quoted in it are tannaim, the latest
of them being Judah ha-Nasi and his contemporaries. Extracts
from it are cited in the amoraic literature. It was therefore evidently
compiled at the same time as the other beraitot, i.e.,
after the close of the Mishnah but before that of the Babylonian
Talmud. The chapter arrangement is as follows: chapter
1 – the dimensions of the Tabernacle, its boards, their appearance
and arrangement; 2 – the curtains of tekhelet (blue), their
preparation and the manner in which they were placed over
the Tabernacle; 3 – the curtains of goats’ skins and the other
covers of the Tabernacle – the rams’ skins dyed red and the
taḥash (unidentified animal mentioned in the Bible) skins;
4 – the weaving of the veil and the screen at the entrance;
5 – the court of the Tabernacle; 6 and 7 – the ark of the covenant
and the tablets which it contained; 8 – the table and the
showbread; 9 and 10 – the candelabrum, its construction and
manner of kindling; 11 – the altar of incense and the altar of
burnt offerings; 12 – the laver; 13 – the work of the levites in
the Tabernacle and the Israelite encampments in the wilderness;
14 – the clouds of glory. The priestly garments are not
treated at all. Extracts from Baraita de-Melekhet ha-Mishkan
are included in the Baraita of 49 Rules. Some are even of the
opinion that the last two chapters, in which the aggadic element
is considerable, originally belonged to the Baraita of 49
Rules (L. Gruenhut, Sefer ha-Likkutim, 2 (1898), 11–13). The
baraita was first published in Venice in 1602, and a critical edition
was published in 1908 by Meir Ish Shalom (Friedmann),
on the basis of various manuscripts and editions, together
with an introduction.
[Yitzhak Dov Gilat]
In 1992 Robert Kirschner published a new critical edition of
Baraita de-Melekhet ha-Mishkan, based on early medieval
manuscripts and genizah fragments, along with an introduction
and translation. He raised a number of new issues and
reexamined a number of old ones. The genre to which this
work belongs is particularly problematic. On the one hand,
it is similar to the literature of the Mishnah, in that it is organized
by topic. On the other hand, it is closely tied to the biblical
description of the Tabernacle and is concerned with the
explication of the biblical text. It is somewhat similar to certain
extended passages in tannaitic literature which restate biblical
events and institutions. As a whole, it must be viewed as
a unique synthesis, or hybrid, of these literary forms. Kirschner
also reopened the question of its date of composition. He
examined the character of the mishnaic Hebrew in which it is
composed, the exegetical terminology it employs, the tradents
quoted in it, and compared the text of the work to parallel
passages found in rabbinic literature. Kirschner’s conclusions
confirm the view that the Baraita de-Melekhet ha-Mishkan is
essentially an authentic work of the tannaitic period.
[Stephen G. Wald (2nd ed.)]
Bibliography: A. Jellinek (ed.), Beit ha-Midrash, 3 (19382),
xxix–xxx; S. Buber, Yeri’ot Shelomo (1896), 15–16; L. Ginzberg (ed.),
Ginzei Schechter, 1 (1928), 374–83. Add. Bibliography: R. Kirschner
(ed.), Baraita de-Melekhet ha-Mishkan (1992).
BARAITA DE-NIDDAH, ancient work on ritual purity of
sectarian character, already known in the early geonic period.
It is mentioned in Sefer ha-Mikẓa’ot (cited in Aggur, sect. 1,
Or Zaru’a esct. 360), and in Naḥmanides’ commentary (Gen.
31:35), and is referred to by German-French talmudists of the
13th century, who were probably only indirectly acquainted
with it in a fragmentary fashion and were not clearly aware of
its sectarian nature. It was published in 1890 by C.M. Horowitz.
The baraita consists of aggadah and halakhah concerning
the biblical and post-biblical laws of the menstruant woman
(niddah; Lev. 15:19–33). There is no mention of any Babylonian
scholars and the chronology of tannaim and amoraim is
ignored. The tendency of the baraita is to oppose the lenient
rulings of the school of *Hillel and of R.*Akiva. The account
in the Talmud (Er. 13b; TJ, Ber. 1:7, 3b) of a heavenly voice deciding
in favor of the Hillelites is rendered in the baraita as
follows: “Blessed be the strict. Both [Hillel and Shammai]
speak the words of the living God; but we must regulate ourselves
according to the teachings of the School of Shammai”
(Horowitz, p. 21).
The baraita lays special stress on the laws of ritual cleanness,
particularly with regard to food. B.M. Lewin (Metivot
(1933), 108–12) points out that the stringencies referred to have
no basis in the Talmud, but did exist among Jews in Ereẓ Israel.
S. Lieberman, however, maintains that although some of the
128 ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 3