(6.) Midrash on the Psalms, called (W^hfl ;!3"i'1Ta [Nna"i]) Midrash Tillim {Rahhatha'\,narjadath Tillim (n"'bn n*!:)!), or Shochar Tob (21:: ^nO), after the words with which it commences. With the exceptions of seven psalms — viz. xlii, xcvi, xcvii, xcviii, cxv, cxxiii, and cxxxi— this Midrash extends over the whole Psalter. As it contains extracts from the Babylonian Talmud, the Pesikta, Boraitha of R. Eliezer, Tanchuma, and Pesikta Rabbathi, it must have been compiled about the end of the 10th century, most probably in Italy. It was first published at Constantinople in 1512. The portion on Psa. cxix, which extends to the first verses of the letter p, is called Midrash Alpha Betha (Sn^n SSbx 011^), from the fact that this is an al- phabetic psalm ; it has been published separately (Sa- lonica, 1515). The Midrash on the Psalms has fre- quently been published together with the Midrash on Samuel, under the title Midrash Shochar Tob ("iniU 3112), which properly belongs only to that on the Psalms.
(7.) Midrash on Proverbs, called ("ibiya Ol'ia [Xnnl]) Midrash Mishle [^RahbaUui], consists of a compilation of those maxims and expositions from for- mer works which are best calculated to illustrate and ex- plain the import of the book of Proverbs. The com- piler, who hved about the middle of the 11th century, omits all the references to the original sources, discards the form of lectures, and assumes that of a commentary. The first edition of this Midrash appeared at Constanti- nople in 1512-17, with the commentary Sera Abraham (Vilua, 1834), and the commentary of Isaac Cohen (Stet- tin, 1861).
(8.) Midrash Jalkut (alp^i ;!3^n^), or Jalkut Shi- moni (■'31":a'J Mlpb'^), i. e. the collection or compila- tion ofSimeon,v/ho flourished in the 11th century. This Midrash, which extends over the whole Hebrew Script- lures, is described in the article Cara in this Cyclopcedia. III. Method and Plan of the Midrash. — In discussing its method and plan, it must be borne in mind that the jNIidrash first developed itself in public lectures and homilies ; that the ancient fragments of these discourses became afterwards literary commodities, serving fre- quently as the groundwork of literary productions; and that the Midrashic writers or compilers mixed up other matters and pieces of their own composition with the remnants of expository lectures. The ancient relics, liowever, are easily discernible by their dialect, diction, etc., and by the authority to whom they are ascribed. That there was a method in them has been shown by the erudite and indefatigable Jellinek, than whom there is no greater authority on the subject. He points out the following plan as gathered from the ancient fragments : 1. The lecturer first set forth the theme of his dis- course in a passage of Scripture enunciating the partic- ular truth which he wished to unfold, and then illus-
trated it by a parable, and enforced it by a saying which was popular in the mouth of the people. This ride is given in the Midrash itself (comp. "pil^lDI ",rib C^,
n:iibn nnb ai^^irJ'a onb 'a''\^'\p^, Midrash on
the Song of Solomon, 1 a).
2. The attention of the audience was roused and the discourse was enlivened by the lecturer using a foreign word instead of a well-known expression, or by employ- ing a Greek, Latin, Aramaic, or Persian term in addition to the Hebrew (comp. Aruch, s. v. ipTl'lX). This ac- counts for the striking fact that so many foreign words occur in the Midrash to express things for which the Hebrew has expressions, and that both Hebrew and for- eign words, expressing the same idea, stand side by side (comp. "pLJipb ',1I3ipm ^in^ •y'^n-Ci, Midrash Kab- bah on Genesis, c.\u; ■pD13"':\ nni n^^lL: ryz, Midrash on the Song of Solomon, 1 a).
3. The lecturer increased tlie beauty of his discourse by trying to discover analogies between numbers and persons related to each other — e. g. between David and Solomon. Comp. Midrash on the Song of Songs, ibid.
4. The lecture was also rendered more attractive by being interspersed with plays upon words, which were not intended to explain or corroborate a statement, but were simply meant to create a pleasant feeling in the audience. Hence, to judge of the frequent plays upon words by the rules of hermeneutics is to misimderstand the aesthetics of the Hagadah.
5. It was considered as ornamenting the discourse, and pleasing to the audience, when single words were reduced to their numerical value in order to put a cer- tain point of the lecture in a clearer light. Thus, e. g., the lecturer speaking of Eliezer, Abraham's faithful ser- vant, and being desirous to show that he alone was worth a host of servants, remarked that Eliezer ("iT2!i?5t, 1+30 + 10-1-70 + 7 + 200 = 318) is exactly as much as the three hundred and eighteen young men mentioned in Gen. xiv, 14. Comp. Midrash Rabhoth on Genesis, ch. xUi. When it is remembered that the Hebrew let- ters were commonly used as numbers, it wiU be easily understood how the audience would be rejoiced to see a word converted so dexterously into figures.
6. To relieve the discourse of its monotony, the lect- urer resolved a long word into several little words, or formed new words by taking away a letter or two from the preceding and following words in the same sentence.
" If the Midrash is read with the guidance of these iesthetical canons," continues Dr. Jellinek, "we shall find in it less arbitrariness and more order. We shall, more- over, understand its method and plan, and often be put in a position to distinguish the original discourse from the literary element of a later date, as well as from in- terpolations. For the confirmation of our a3sthetical canons, let the reader compare and analyze chapters ii, iii, and v of Midrash Rabboth on Genesis" {Ben Cha- nanja, iv,38S sq.).