I. Among the Rabbinic Jews. — Immediately after the close of the canon, the study of the Old Test, became an object of scientific treatment. A number of God- fearing men arose, who, by their instruction, encourage- ment, and solemn admonitions, rooted and builded up the people in tlieir most holy faith. The first among these was Ezra, who read and explained the law to the people (Neh. viii, 8). As the Bible formed the central point around which their legends, sermons, lectures,- discussions, investigations, etc., clustered, a homiletico- exegetical literature was, in the course of time, devel- oped, which was called Midrash (i;3"l*Ta). This Mid- rash again developed itself in the Ilulachah (^ri2?n), i. e. current law, fixed rule of life; also called NnS'^'CJ, what was heard or accepted, and Hagadah (m5n), i. e, tchat was said, without having the authority of a law, i. e. free ex])osition, homilies, moral sayings, and legends. Starting from the principle that Scripture, especially the Pentateuch, contained an answer to every question, the text was explained in a fourfold manner, viz.: 1, KTIIS, in a simple, jyrimarg, or literal; 2, om, second- ary, homiletic, or spiritual ; 3, T"2"i, allegorical; 4, 110, recondite or mysterious sense, which was afterwards des- ignated by the acrostic Pardes (q. v.). These four modes of interpretation were also espoused by the cele- brated Nicholas de Lyra (q. v.), which he describes in the well-known couplet —
" Littera gesta docet, quid credas Allegoria, Moralis quid agas, quo leudas auagogia."
Long before De Lyra, we also find a threefold mode of interpretation by Origen, viz. : aajfiariKog, -^vxik^oc, and TTvtvfiaTiKoQ (comp, irEpi apxiiiv, lib. iv, c. 2). As the Midrashic literature has alreadj' been treated in the art. Midrash (q. v.), we can only refer to it. The fourfold mode of interpretation, however, was not suffi- cient for the explanation, and, according to the old say- ing that " the law can be interpreted in forty-nine dif- ferent modes" (-Q^it X:"t2'2 n'a"n3 mirn, Midrash Rahb. Lev. § xxvi, p. 149 b), all impossibilities could be made possible. Hence the necessity arose for laying down and fixing certain laws for the interpretation of the Scripture. This was done by Hillel the Great (q. v.) by his MTa 7, or seven rules, according to which the law was to be explained, viz. :
1. Inference from minor to major (T^IHI 7p). Thus, e. g., in Exod. xxii, 13 it is not said whether the bor- rower of a thing is responsible for theft. In ver. 9-11, however, it is declared that the depositary who can free himself from making restitution in cases of death or ac- cident must make restitution when the animal is stolen; ■while in ver. 13 the borrower is even obliged to make restitution in cases of death or accident. Hence the inference made from the minor (i. e. the depositary) to the major (i. e. the borrower) that he (in xxii, 13) is all the more responsible for tlieft (Baba Metsia, 95 a ; comp. also for other examples, Berakoth, ix, 5 med. ; Beza,v, 2 ; Sanhedrin, vi, 5 ; Eduyoth, vi, 2).
2. The analogy of ideas or analogous inferences (tll'^TS iTny). This rule was employed by Hillel himself against the sons of Bathcira, who pretended not to know whether or not the Paschal lamb might be slain on the Sabbath, when the evening of the Passover happened to fall on that day. Hillel affirmed this question on the ground of the analogous inference. In Numb. xxviii, 2 it is said concerning the daily sacrifice, "to oflfer it in its time" (TlSIOS); and it is also said re- specting the Paschal lamb, " let the children of Israel keep it in its time" Cn^'lTSn, Numb, ix, 2). lie thus
concluded, since the dailj' sacrifice can be offered on the Sabbath, so likewise can the Paschal lamb {Pesachim, vi, 2; Jerus. Pesachim, 06 a; Tosephta Pesachim, c. 4).
3. Analogy of two objects i.i one verse (2X "i'^"^ inx mn:^). Thus in Lev. xv, 4 two objects are mentioned, the bed and the chair pTl^l^Sl ^STU'a), which, though belonging to two different classes, have the common quality of serving for repose. And as these are declared to be unclean ■when touched by him who has an issue, and to have the power of defiling both men and garments through contact, it is inferred that all things which serve for resting may be rendered un- clean by him who has an issue, and then defile both men and garments.
4. Analogy of ttoo objects in two ve7-ses (2X "("^33 C^iins ^i'ii'O), e. g., though the command to light the lamps in the sanctuary (riTiD, Lev. xxiv, 4) is different from the command " to put out of the camp every leper" (Numb, v, 2), inasmuch as the former is enjoined for all times (ver. 3), while the latter enjoins only the speedy carrying -out of the injunction (ver. 4); 3-et, because they both have in common the word 1^, command, the conclusion is that every law with regard to which the expression IS is used must at once and forever be car- ried out.
5. General and special (I3"E1 ViZi). Hereby is meant that wherever a special statement follows a general one, the definition of the special is to be applied to the gen- eral use. Thus in Lev. i, 2 we read, "If any man of you bring an offering to the Lord, from cattle, from oxen, and from sheep." Here cattle is a general ex- pression, and may denote different kinds of animals. Oxen and sheep is the special whereby the general is defined, and therewith it is rendered coextensive. Hence it is inferred that only oxen and small cattle may be brought as sacrifices, but not beasts.