Baraita De-Melekhet Ha-Mishkan: A Critical Edition With Introduction and Translation (review)

Hebrew Studies 35 (1994) 166 Reviews non-elites. Virtually all articles also address methodological matters, especially social-scientific and literary but also historical, archaeological, henneneutical, and integrative. With their self-conscious efforts to come to tenns with political factors at play both today and in ancient Israel, the authors have not only demonstrated the scholarly impact of Gottwald's work but also have replicated his personal advocacy on behalf of populations who stand outside of power and privilege. The volume concludes with a bibliography of Gottwald's writings, complete except for the list of his book reviews. An index of subjects and biblical texts would have been a useful addition to a volume which, even though not systematic or comprehensive, nonetheless deals extensively with political and related issues. The volume can be highly recommended as a collection of essays representing latest trends and novel perspectives pursued with excitement in contemporary biblical studies. Douglas A. Knight Vanderbilt University Nashville, TN 37240 BARAITA DE·MELEKHET HA·MISHKAN: A CRITICAL EDITION WITH INTRODUCTION AND TRANSLATION. By Robert Kirschner. Monographs of the Hebrew Union College 15. Pp. xi + 318. Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College, 1992. Cloth. In this study, Prof. Kirschner has produced a fonnidable work of rabbinic scholarship, setting new standards of meticulousness and excellence. The title may be somewhat misleading, for the actual "Critical Edition and Translation" take up only about one third of those. The main body is devoted to an extensive and infonnative Introduction, which gives an in-depth analysis of and introduction to the Baraita de-Melekhet ha-Mishkan (= BMM). the tannaitic account of the structure and worship of the Tabernacle. The first chapter opens with a detailed account of the history of the tabernacle in biblical and later sources. Much space is devoted to Philo's exegesis of the Tabernacle account and to substantiating the statement, "There is no sustained or consecutive exegesis of the tabernacle description in the major tannaitic, amoraic, or geonic compendia now extant" (p. 3), as well as discussing the symbolic correspondence between the various components of the tabernacle and celestial bodies. Interesting as these may be, it is difficult to Hebrew Studies 35 (1994) 167 Reviews see how such exegesis and symbolism in other sources are directly related to this work. In his description of the structure of the Baraita de-Melekhet ha-Mishkan, Kirschner makes the following keen observations: "...BMM is prone to cite Scripture in the manner of the halakhic midrashim. Yet unlike the halakhic midrashim, BMM does not follow the order of Scripture in its exposition. This divergence from...distinct Rabbinic genres is a unique characteristic of BMM. It helps to explain the variety of names for the work attested in medieval citations: •mishnah, baraita, pirqe' ...Melekhet ha-Mishkan, Ma(aseh Mishkan" (p. 6). Kirschner discusses whether the work is a type of mishnah, midrash, or something in between. Chapter 2 undertakes a lengthy discussion of the methods by which rabbinic Hebrew can be stratified and dated. Evaluating the language of this text, Kirschner determines categorically that "...the language of BMM is uniformly MH" (Mishnaic Hebrew of the Tannaim; p. 23). Its technical terminology also leads him to the conclusion that "the specialized vocabulary of BMM, no less than its more common lexical features, corroborates its assignment to MH" (p. 25). Yet on p. 5, Kirschner makes the equally categorical statement: "BMM is the only systematic rabbinic exegesis of the tabernacle account to emerge from late antiquity or the Middle Ages" (p. 5, emphasis added). He provides tables of Palestinian and Babylonian dialect examples in order to determine its provenance as well as an extensive table of exegetical terminology and another that groups the named tradents according to the centers of tannaitic activity: Yavneh (70-130 C.E.), Usha (135-170), and Beth Shearim (170-200). From these he concludes, "...the preponderance of Ushan Tannaim together with six attributions to the circle of Judah ha-Nasi would suggest the third or fourth century C.E. as the earliest possible date (p. 32, emphasis added). Also: "...the vast majority of attributions in BMM cite Tannaim from the mid-second century" (p. 31, emphasis added). If so, one wonders why he entertains the...