The works recorded thus far, though containing occasional hermeneutical elements, convey, owing to their scantiness and the long intervals at which they occur, but a faint idea of the interpretatory
* See S. Schechter’s introduction to his edition of Aboth @ R, Nathan, Vienna, 1878.
tSee Dr. Joel Miller’s introduction to his edition of the Musechet Soferim.
{ See N. Briill, ‘Die Talmudischen Tractate tiber Trauer um Verstorbene’ (Jahrbiicher der Jiid. Litt. pp. 1-57).
~ a product of the school of R. ‘Akiba.
TALMUD
TALMUD 63
work of the Zannaim. For this we must turn to the earlier Midrash, which has come down to us in the following works:—the Mékhilta (sab), ‘Measure’ on a portion of Exodus; the Siphré (285), ‘the Books’ on portions of Numbers and the whole of Deuteronomy, both Midrashim emanating from the school of Ishmael; and the Siphra (spd) or Térath Kéhdinim (o> min), <The Book’ or ‘The Law of the Priests’ on Leviticus, Besides these fairly complete works we also possess frag- ments of a Mékhilta of R. Shim‘on i Yohai on Exodus, and of a small Siphra (xy s79p) on Num- bers, both originating in the school of R. ‘Akiba; and of a Mékhilté on Deuteronomy, coming from the school of R. Ishmael.* The exegetical system of the Rabbis, forming the basis of the Midrash, grew with the rise of the new schools, the seven hermeneutical rules of Hillel having been developed by R. Ishmael into thirteen, and expanded (par- ticularly as regards their application in the depart- ment of Haggada) by R. Eliezer, the son of R. Jose of Galilee, into thirty-two or thirty-three rules; whilst rules of interpretation of other distin- guished Rabbis are also mentioned. The practical object of the Midrash was the deduction of new Hilakhéth from the Scriptures, or the finding of a ‘support’ (xa220x) for the old ones. It is very difficult to determine in which cases the Midrash preceded the Halakha, and in which the Halakha preceded the Midrash, but it may be safely assumed that in most cases where the interpre- tation of the Rabbis is forced and far-fetched the Hdlakha was first handed down by tradition as an ancient usage or custom, and the Biblical ‘support’ was invoked only to give it the weight of Scripture authority. Here are one or two instances, which, given in the language of the Rabbis, may convey some idea of the vivid style of the Midrash—
‘R. Ishmael, R. ’Eliezer b. ‘Azarya, and R. ‘Akiba were walking on the high-road, and Levi Hassadar and R. Ishmael the son of R. ’Eliezer b. “Azarya were walking behind them. And then the following question was put before them, ‘* Whence is it to be inferred that danger of life ‘removes’ the Sabbath?” . . . R. Jose of Galilee answered, ‘‘It is written, BuT (4x) my Sabbaths ye shall keep (Ex 31); the (limiting pence) qs teaches, there are Sabbaths which thou
eepest, others which thou ‘removest’ (the latter in cases of danger of life).” JR. Shim‘on b. Manasya says, “‘ Behold Scripture says, And ye shall keep the Sabbaths, for it is holy unto you (ib. v.), the Sabbath is given to you (with stress on the word 02>) to desecrate in case of need, but thou art not given to the Sabbath”’ (Mckhilta, ad loc.). Other Rabbis base this Hdlakha on the logical principle of @ fortiori (x2:m 5p, one of the hermen- eutical rules of Hillel), but none disputes the Hdlakhé in itself, which had evidently the authority of ages. Another instance is the interpretation of Ex 2174 (cf. Lv 24°): ‘ Hye for eye, that is, money (amounting to the value of the eye). Thou sayest money, perhaps it means the real eye (7.¢. that his eye should be blinded in retaliation for the organ which he has destroyed). R. Eliezer said, ‘‘It is written, And he that killeth a beast he shall restore, and he that killeth a man shall be put to death (Ly 2471), The Scripture has thus put together damages caused to a man and those caused to a beast. As the latter may be atoned for by pay- ing (the damages), so can also the former (except in cases of murder) be punished with money”’
* See on these Midrashim: I. H. Weiss’ Introduction to his edition of the Sifra (Vienna, 1862); M. Friedmann’s Introduc- tion to his edition of the Mékhilté (Vienna, 1870); Dr. Lewy, Ein Wort diber die ‘Mechilta des R. Simon’ (Breslau, 1889) ; and Dr. D. Hoffmann, Zur Hinleitung in die halachischen Midraschim (Berlin, 1886-87).