In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Hebrew Studies 48 (2007) 401 Reviews MEKHILTA DE-RABBI SHIMON BAR YOHAI: TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH, WITH CRITICAL INTRODUCTION AND ANNOTATION. By W. David Nelson. Pp. xxx + 398. Philadelphia, Pa.: The Jewish Publication Society, 2006. Cloth, $75.00. In 1870, Meir Friedmann restored the Mekhilta De-Rabbi Shimon to the world of Jewish scholarship by printing a list of potential passages from this midrash in the appendix of his edition of the Mekilta De-Rabbi Yishmael. The latter was a well known Tannaitic midrash to the book of Exodus attributed to the “school” of Rabbi Yishmael. That text has been published in a number of editions, including the three-volume Jewish Publication Society’s bi-lingual edition and translation by J. Z. Lauterbach (1933–1936). Alas, the Mekhilta De-Rabbi Shimon, ostensibly of the other school of tannaitic exegesis , the “school” of Rabbi Aqiba, had disappeared from view and had never been printed. In 1905, David Hoffman offered a reconstruction of the Mekhilta De-Rabbi Shimon, and in 1955, an updated and expanded edition based in part on Geniza fragments, was published by J. N. Epstein and E. Z. Melamed. In the half century since, many new manuscript fragments of the Mekhilta De-Rabbi Shimon were discovered. At the same time, however, the thesis presented by Hoffman that there were two distinct “schools” of tannaitic midrash came under attack. All of which should make the publication of a bi-lingual edition and translation of the Mekhilta De-Rabbi Shimon a welcome addition to scholarly libraries. The Jewish Publication Society and Professor W. David Nelson have undertaken the task, offering a brief but comprehensive scholarly introduction, English translation, and some minimal notes offering parallels between the two Mekhilta collections, with occasional explications of difficult readings. Unfortunately, this is not a new edition of the midrash, but a translation of the 1955 Epstein and Melamed edition. Nelson himself characterized the Epstein-Melamed edition of the Mekhilta De-Rabbi Shimon text as, “tedious and baffling to utilize in an informed manner.” (W. D. Nelson, “Critiquing a Critical Edition: Challenges Utilizing the Mekhilta of Rabbi Shimon b. Yohai,” in Recent Developments in Midrash Research, ed. L. Teugels and R. Ulmer [Piscataway, N.J.: Gorgias Press, 2005], p. 104.) He further notes in the preface to his Jewish Publication Society translation (p. xx) that there is a “need for, and… potential scholarly benefit that would be provided by an updated, systematic critical edition of the text.” Since Nelson acknowledges in that preface that Israeli scholar Menahem Kahana is engaged in a long-term project to produce such an updated edition, one wonders why Nelson and the Jewish Publication Society did not choose to wait for it. Hebrew Studies 48 (2007) 402 Reviews One also wishes that the Jewish Publication Society had allowed Nelson much more room to annotate his translations, as many passages cry out for further explication, even to the experienced reader. Further, the work abounds in awkward renderings. Here is a selection of texts that could be more felicitously translated: p. 19 the Hebrew for six (mesheeshah) is translated as “three” with no note. p. 29 Nelson translates “has not satisfied the requirement,” which should read, “does not prevent.” p. 55 twice renders “they were [chosen] in proportion to” which should read, “they were of equal value or worth.” p. 68 is translated, “Milk refers to the fruit and honey refers to the dates,” which should read: “‘milk’ refers to liquid from fruit [e.g. coconut milk], and ‘honey’ refers to date-honey.” p. 81 reads, “I did not promise their forefathers,” which absent a note of emendation should read: “I promised their forefathers” p. 83 reads, “Joseph’s casket shook,” which is correct, but absent a note of emendation should read: “Moses’ casket.” p. 120 reads: “(A psalm of David) A song for the dedication (of the House):” which is correct, but utterly obscures the rendering upon which the midrash is based, “A song of dedication of David’s House.” p. 177 reads, “the great Rabbinic court, blessed be it,” which should read, “the great [Divine] Court, blessed be He,” which is also incorrectly rendered on p. 183. p. 187 is translated, “There...

pdf

Share