A Commentary on Derech Ereẓ Zuta: Chapters Five to Eight (review)

Hebrew Studies 33 (1992) 163 Reviews A COMMENTARY ON DERECH ERE~ ZUTA: CHAPTERS FIVE TO EIGHT. By Daniel Sperber. Pp. 190. Ramat-Gan, Israel: Barl1an University, 1990. Cloth. Derekh 'Eres Zuta is one of the so-called "external tractates" of the Talmud. This text, having circulated in various forms throughout the Middle Ages, was included in most printed editions of the Talmud and was edited and analyzed critically by Michael Higger in 1929 and 1935. Daniel Sperber has previously published Hebrew commentaries to Derekh 'Eres Zuta (1979 and 1982) and a deluxe edition of chap. 11 (Pereq ha-Shalom), entitled Great is Peace (1974). A Commentary on Derech Ere? Zuta: Chapters Five to Eight is the second of three projected volumes comprising Derekh 'Eres Zuta and the first to appear. Volumes 1 and 3 will include a detailed introduction, indices, and bibliographies; these will increase the usefulness of this set considerably. This three-volume commentary on Derekh 'Eres Zuta will then become part of a projected series of "Rabbinic Wisdom Literature." The present volume consists of a translation of and commentary to what is known as Derekh 'Eres Zecira (chaps. 5-8 of the Vilna edition), together with a vocalized version of Higger's Hebrew text. Selected variants are listed with the Hebrew text, including those of the Vilna edition. Helpfully, Sperber prints these variants alongside of the main text rather than at the bottom. Although he follows Higger's text, the order of chapters and statements is that of the Vilna edition. The translation is clear and as literal as possible, in contrast to Higger's more idiomatic rendition. As those familiar with Sperber's reputation as a leader in the lexicography of Rabbinic language would expect, the translation and rich philological notes are themselves worthy of attention, regardless of one's interest in Derekh 'Eres Zuta per se. The commentary covers a remarkably wide range of sources and parallels. Along with the direct parallels in Rabbinic and post-talmudic literature, medieval ethical literature and responsa are mined for material on the customs, mores, and halakhic considerations behind Derekh 'Eres Zura's teachings. These literatures extend well past the time of Dereklz 'Eres Zura's composition, and the reader will have to decide how these sources can contribute to a more strictly historical account of the background of the text. Sperber is particularly good at explaining the halakhic basis for Derekh 'Eres Zuta's dicta. For example, the exhortation against idleness (6:5) is certainly a common- Hebrew Studies 33 (1992) 164 Reviews place in wisdom literature, but, as Sperber points out (pp. 96-97), it also has a basis in halakhic exegesis of the clause "six days shall you labor." Derekh 'Ere$ Zuta raises several literary, historical, and even phenomenological issues, for both specialists and non-specialists. Indeed, the volume "is directed not only at students of Rabbinic Literature, but also classicists, and to a lesser extent medievalists" (pp. 8-9). Several ways can be suggested in which the text might be of interest to these audiences. For students of Judaism in Late Antiquity, this commentary focuses attention on what might be called "Rabbinic Apocrypha," or the extracanonical Rabbinic literature. (These terms suppose a rather broad application of the term "canon.") These tractates contain material having its origin in Tannaitic and Amoraic times, but were probably compiled in the late Amoraic or Geonic periods. It is to be hoped that interest in the extracanonical tractates may also draw the attention of a wider scholarly public to such collections as are found in C. Horowitz's Tose/ta Atiqta (1889) and the so-called minor midrashim. Such works often reflect subtle differences in emphasis or ideology from "canonical" Talmuds and midrashim. A striking example is Braita de-Massekhet Niddah (discussed on p. 130, n. 54), which differs in its restrictiveness from talmudic teaching on menstrual purity, and some of whose attitudes may have been adopted by the authors of Hekhalot literature (see S. Lieberman's remarks in I. Gruenwald, Apocalyptic and Merkavah Mysticism [1980], pp. 241244 ; and Y. Dinari in TeCudah 3 [1983]: 17-37). The historical and social implications of these differences deserve exploration. Although Derekh 'Eres Zwa...