historical perspectives: from the hasmoneans to bar kokhba in light ...

"[T]HE[Y] DID NOT READ IN THE SEALED BOOK" 121
that Hillel ('The Elder'!) made an original contribution to the understanding
of the text under discussion, and so they refused to accept
the story at face value. This difficulty has produced several complicated
and forced explanations of the baraita in order to avoid leaving
the reader with the impression that Hillel did not make a significant
contribution. 49
The text, however, is quite clear and very simple; it argues that
Hillel's innovation was his willingness to look at the written text of
the marriage contract and to rely upon it as a source to decide the
matter. 50 In that early stage, this is precisely what is meant by the
term 'midrash.' 51 Again we see that the very concept of the text as
an authority to which one may appeal in halakhic matters was relatively
new at that time.
49
This difficulty has perplexed modern scholars as well. See, for example, Kister,
202 n. 2; Ch. Albeck, "Betrothal and its Deeds," in Studies in
Memory of Moses Schorr, ed. L. Ginzberg and A. Weiss (New York: Hotsa'at Va'adat
Zikaron Mosheh Shorr, 1944), 16 (Hebrew); L. M. Epstein, "Notes on the Status
of the Jewish Woman," JQR n.s. 14 (1923-24): 497-98; A. Gulak, Das Urkundenwesen
im Talmud im Lichte der griechisch-aegyptischen Papyri und des griechischen und romischen Rechts
(Jerusalem: Rubin Mass, 1935), 37-38 (= Legal Documents in the Talmud in Light of
Greek Papyri and Greek and Roman Law, edited and supplemented by R. Katzoff
[Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1994], 47). En passant, I would note that Gulak wanted
to emend the text and read ("and one from the market
would come and abduct her") but this is unnecessary; the text describes a well
known reality in Mediterranean societies. See J. Evans-Grubbs, "Abduction Marriage
in Antiquity: A Law of Constantine (CTh IX. 24. I) and Its Social Context," Journal
of Roman Studies 79 (1989): 59—83; J. Evans-Grubbs, Law and Family in Late Antiquity
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995): 183-93.
50
See also Urbach, "The Drasha," 176-77, end of n. 35; A. I. Yadin, Imitatio
Scriptures: Torah and Hermeneutics in the Rabbi Ishmael Midrashim (Ph.D. dissertation;
Berkeley University, 1999), 150. This is implied in Hillel's response:
which indicates that the essence of Hillel's innovation was his very
willingness to use the written document to solve the halakhic difficulty. Cf. Kister,
202 n. 2.
51
Cf. Rashi, ad b. San. 52b, who writes of the Sadducees that they explicate
Scripture literally , i.e., they simply read the text
of the Torah and follow its literal meaning. On the development of the term
'midrash,' see J. Heineman, "The Development of the Technical Terminology for
the Interpretation of the Bible, PRS," Leshonenu 15 (1946): 182-89 (Hebrew); and,
most recently, A. Hurvitz, "Continuity and Innovation in Biblical Hebrew: The
Case of 'Semantic Change' in Post-Exilic Writings," in Studies in Ancient Hebrew
Semantics, ed. T. Muraoka, Abr-Nahrain Supplement Series 4 (Louvain: Peeters Press,
1995), 1-10.