Also: Seder Eliyahu (wk.

)
TANNA DE-VEI ELIYAHU or SEDER ELIYAHU (Aram. Bhjla ybd aCG or Heb. Bhjla rds),
a midrashic work. Unlike all the other Midrashim it does not consist of a compilation or collection of
individual homilies but is a uniform work stamped with a character of its own. The work, which is
characterized by original expressions and rhetorical constructions couched in poetic and even flowery
language, is distinguished by its didactic moral aim: the author deals with the divine precepts and the
reasons for them, and the importance of knowledge of Torah, prayer, and repentance. He is especially
concerned with the ethical and religious values which are enshrined in the Bible and in the trials and
lives of the patriarchs.
The problem of the date and place of composition of Seder Eliyahu has not yet been resolved. It has
been variously dated almost anywhere between the third and tenth centuries. S.J. Rapoport suggested the
tenth century, on the basis of three considerations: the number of its chapters does not tally with that
given by the Arukh, which he believed to be the Tanna de-Vei Eliyahu mentioned a number of times in
the Talmud (e.g., Ket. 106a; from the collection of geonic responsa published by S. Assaf, it is now clear
that the Arukh quoted Natronai Gaon, who lived in the ninth century); some of the quotations in the
Talmud from the Tanna de-Vei Eliyahu are not found in the present work; and the dates given in the work
(chap. 2, p. 6; chap. 7, p. 37; chap. 29, p. 163) indicate the tenth century. While Zunz agreed with
Rapoport, M. Friedmann refuted two of his arguments; proving that the original number of chapters in
the manuscripts conforms to that mentioned in the Arukh and maintaining rightly that the dates were
altered by later copyists. However, he conceded the third point and held that the Tanna de-Vei Eliyahu of
the Talmud is distinct from the present work. In his view, in its original form it dates from the third
century but contains late additions. Despite the determined attempt of Margalioth to prove that the two
works are identical and the fact that the nine passages from the Tanna de-Vei Eliyahu cited in the
Babylonian Talmud do in fact occur in the present work, an examination of the sources of the Midrash as
a whole makes it clear beyond question that it utilizes both the Babylonian Talmud and Midrashim
which are later than it (Urbach, see bibl.). The other proofs which Margalioth puts forward as indicating
an early date (in his view, the first half of the third century)—the names of the scholars mentioned, all of
whom are tannaim, as well as the expressions used, which he believes are all tannaitic—are not decisive.
As the author often omits to mention the name of the sage who delivered the homily, it is therefore
possible that he gave only the names of the most famous of the tannaim to whom he ascribes his
statements. Margalioth's conclusions with regard to expressions are also far from irrefutable (Urbach).
Similarly all attempts to infer the date from the historical references are inconclusive. Mann and Epstein
fix its date at the end of the amoraic era (Epstein is of the opinion that it was arranged then.) Aptowitzer
fixes the date of its composition as the ninth century. All that can be stated with certainty is that the
Midrash was compiled before the ninth century (Albeck), and that Natronai Gaon refers to the present
work and not, as Rapoport and Zunz thought, to the talmudic.
Eliyahu is the speaker in the work but there is no suggestion of a pseudepigrapha, nor should it be
inferred that its author is a certain Abba Eliyahu. The name is mentioned only in chapter 15 of Seder
Eliyahu Zuta and this chapter is a later addition by a copyist. The author relates that he came from
Jabneh, that he resided in Jerusalem, and that he wandered in Babylon. He disputes with a fire worshiper
and with those who accept the Bible but not the Mishnah (whether he was referring to Christians or to
Karaites is a disputed point). His halakhic conclusions, which contain interesting deviations from
accepted halakhah, constitute a problem on their own, but in general his halakhah approximates to that
of Erez Israel.
The work is in two sections: Seder Eliyahu Rabbah and Seder Eliyahu Zuta, and the original parts of the
second appear to be by the same author as the first. There are a number of editions: Venice, 1598;
Prague, 1676–77 with Samuel Heida's commentaries Zikkukin de-Nura and Bi'urin de-Esha, according
to which there were many other editions; Vienna, 1901 with introduction and notes by M. Friedmann,
from a Rome manuscript of 1073; Tanna de-Vei Eliyahu Zuta (19 chapters) edited by H.M. Horowitz
from a Parma manuscript and published in part 2 of Beit Eked ha-Aggadot; appendixes to Seder Eliyahu
Zuta, being three chapters of Derekh Erez and seven of Pirkei de-R. Eliezer (Vienna, 1904) by M.
Friedmann; and Likkutei Seder Eliyahu Zuta from a Genizah manuscript, published by L. Ginsberg in
Ginzei Schechter part 1, 238–45.
[Jacob Elbaum]