text · B0008

Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael מכילתא דרבי ישמעאל

The halakhic midrash on Shemot — Oral Torah organized as running commentary on the verse rather than by topic like the Mishnah (Mishnah). With the Sifra and Sifrei it preserves the tannaim's exegetical workshop: how law was actually derived from the written text.

I. Who

Hebrew
מכילתא דרבי ישמעאל
Also known as
Mekhilta
Era
tannaim

II. When

Traditional
tannaitic; from the school of R' Yishmael, redacted after the Mishnah
Academic
redacted c. 3rd c. CE in Eretz Yisrael from tannaitic material
Duration
≈70 years
Precision
disputed

IV. What

Language
Mishnaic Hebrew
Redaction
Anonymous; ascribed by its title and its hermetical fingerprint to the school of R' Yishmael, R' Akiva's (Rabbi Akiva) great interlocutor. The title "Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael" is attested only from the geonic period.
Structure
A halakhic midrash on Shemot, beginning at chapter 12 (the first communal mitzvah) and covering the legal portions through chapter 23 plus Shabbat passages; nine massekhtot (Pischa, Beshallach, Shirata, Vayassa, Amalek, Bachodesh, Nezikin, Kaspa, Shabbeta).

V. How do we know

ClaimEvidenceConfidenceSources
The work is a tannaitic halakhic midrash on Shemot that begins at chapter 12 — the chapter of "This month shall be for you" (12:2), the point where (as Rashi's famous first comment on the Torah notes) the Torah's commanded law begins.
Confidence is for the checkable fact of the work's scope and opening.
rabbinic tradition ★★★★★
The attribution to R' Yishmael's school rests on the work's hermeneutics and the prominence of R' Yishmael and his students in it, not on a Talmudic statement; the title itself first appears in geonic literature. tradition reconstruction ★★★☆☆
  • D.Z. Hoffmann, Zur Einleitung in die halachischen Midraschim (1887); J.N. Epstein, Prolegomena to Tannaitic Literature (1957)
Academic consensus dates the redaction to the 3rd century CE in Eretz Yisrael, from genuinely tannaitic material; a minority view (Wacholder) arguing for a much later, pseudepigraphic composition has been generally rejected. reconstruction ★★★☆☆