rai, Abraham's wife, bare him no children ; and she had a handmaid, an Egyptian, whose name was Hagar" (Gen. xvi, 1), is explained, "And Sarai, Abraham's wife, bare no children to him and to herself" (nbl "lb) ; and then again, to him (i. e. Abraham) and to her (i. e. Sarai) there was a handmaid (i'lZZ'Z} nbl 1>). This rule is called l-iinxbl 'i''3Eb 'C^i: X^p^a, and is not admitted by some (comp. Sabbath, 32 b ; Menachoih, 19 a).
V. The letters of a word are sometimes transposed^ Thus 13br5', "our labor" (Deut. xxv, 7), is made to mean our children, 13^bj?, by transposing the a and theb.
vi. Letters resembling each other in sound or appear- ance, or belonging to the same organ of speech, are inter- changed. Thus nbnp n-j-iii: n-w-2 isb r^rj, min
^py, "Moses commanded us the law, an inheritance of the congregation of Jacob" (Deut. xxxiii, 4), is ex- plained, " The lav.^ which Moses has given us, is the be- THOTHEDor AViFE (nb"!X7:) of the Congregation of Ja- cob," by changing the 1 in iTw'll^ for X, and w for b. The alteration produced by rules v and vi, and which are in the Talmudic and post-Talmudic period generally introduced by the remark "2 xbx "3 iipn bx. Read not so and so, but so and so, must not be taken for emen- dations of the text of various readings, but are siinjily another mode of obtaining an additional meaning of the text. It was argued that as the literal and limited sense of the I5ible, read in the stereotyped order, could not yield sufKciently the divine and inexhaustible mind couched in those letters, every transposition, com- mutation, etc., ought to be resorted to in order to ob- tain as much as possible of the infinite idea ; especially as every such effort yielded that sense and meaning thoroughly in harmony with what might justly be expected from Holy Scripture. It was therefore re- garded as probable that the IJiblc designed to indicate it in addition to what the regular order and reading of the words conveyed. It must also be remembered that some of these rules, especially those wliich involved an alteration of tlie text and a departure from the literal meaning, were not used in Ilalachic exegesis, and that the I/agadic exegesis employs many more than those we have specified. In fact, anything and everything is re- sorted to which can make the text speak comfort and consolation in even,- time of need, or connect the legends about Scriptural characters with the Biblical record. j The puerility and extravagance of many of the rules j are obvious, while others arc of acknowledged value. I See CiVBALA.
MIDRASH
247
MIDWIFE
V. Importance of the Halachic andHagadic Exegesis. —When it is borne in mind that the annotators and punctuators of the Hebrew text, and the translators of the ancient versions, were Jews impregnated with the theological opinions of the nation, and prosecuted their Biblical labors in harmony with these opinions, and the above-named exegetical rules, the importance of the Halachic and Hagadic exegesis to the criticism of the Hebrew text, and to a right understanding of the Greek, Chaldee, Syriac, and other versions, as well as of the quotations of the O. T. in the N. T., can hardly be over- rated. If it be true — and few will question the fact — that every successive English version, cither preceding or following the Reformation, reflects the peculiar no- tions about theology, Church government, and politics of each period and of every dominant party ; and that even the most literal translation of modern days is, in a certain sense, a commentary of the translator; we ought to regard it as natural that the Jews, without intending to deceive, or wilfully to alter the text, should by the process of the Midrash introduce or indicate, in their Biblical labors, the various opinions to which shifting circumstances gave rise. Let a few specimens from the Hebrew text, and the ancient versions, suffice to illus- trate the Midrashic process, and its paramoimt impor- tance to Biblical criticism.
1. The Hebrew Text and the Masorah. — The influence of the Halachic and Hagadic exegesis on the formation of the Hebrew text and the Masorah is far greater than has hitherto been imagined, though the limits of this article only admit of a few examples. Thus, e, g., the question put by Isaiah to Hezekiah, " The shadow has gone forward (Tj'i^) ten degrees; shall it go back ten degrees V" (2 Kings xx, 9) as the Hebrew text has it, is not onh^ grammatically incorrect, inasmuch as the repe- tition of the ten degrees a second time requires the arti- cle, but is at variance with the king's reply given in ver. 10, from which it is evident that the prophet asked him whether the shadow should go foncards or hack- iuards ten degrees, that Hezekiah chose the latter be- cause it was more difficult and wonderful, and that the original reading was r|?.'!'n» instead of "?f^; and, in- deed, this reading is still preserved by the Chaldee, the Syriac, the Vulgate, etc. ; is followed by Luther and the Zurich version, whence it found its way into Coverdale, the Bishop's Bible, and has finally got into the A. V. The mystery about the origin of the present textual reading is solved when we bear in mind the Hagadic explanation of the parallel passage in Isa. xxxviii, 8. Now, tradition based upon this passage tells us that the shadow or the sun had gone ten degrees forwards at the death of Ahaz, and the daj'^ was thus shortened to two