MIDRASH, lit. "exposition" (cf. 2 Chron. xiii., 2 2 : xxiv., 27) or intensive study (derfish) of the spirit of a passage, frequently used of homily and parable in opposition to literal interpretation (Peshat) : term applied to certain methods of scriptural exegesis and to a class of Jewish writings illustrating these methods. The importance of Midrash to an understanding of Judaism is being recognized more generally. It is now realized that Judaism must be studied from its own sources and that apocrypha and apoca lypse, though exceedingly valuable for the light they shed on dissenting sects or shades of quasi-orthodox opinion, do not reflect normal Judaism. These extra-canonical books were excluded just because they were abnormal. The last generation, which was oc cupied in their recovery and study, tended to overstate their ap plication. To-day stress is laid on material which bears the war rant of unbroken tradition and which is therefore a more faithful mirror of the main body of Judaism.
This material may be divided into three groups :—(i) the rules of the traditional law or Halakhah which is systematized in the Mishnah (see GAoN; TALMUD) ; (2) the Midrash of the Schools, often called Halakhic (see HAGGADAH) or Tannaite (i.e., Mish naic) Midrash : this may be defined as the scholastic deduction of the traditional from the written law and consists of several works differing in character and style from (I) and from (3), the Haggadic (see HAGGADAH) or homiletical Midrashim, which are collections of short sermons, of an ethical rather than of a legal nature. The Haggadic Midrash was highly esteemed but it was not as authoritative as the Halakhic. This was natural from the essential difference between the two. Halakhah may be dull and legalistic but it is sober, whereas Haggadah is rarely dull, often highly imaginative and edifying, but it does not insist on sobriety. It includes many elements of extreme interest in folk-lore, archaeology and history. For example, I. Ziegler's Kiinigs gleichnisse des Midrasch (Breslau, 1903) shows how vividly the Midrash illustrates the life and manners of Imperial Rome, especially in the provinces.
The Halakhah is deeply spiritual and is designed to stress the divine immanence, simple piety and the saintly life. The parables are mostly homely and the sayings terse, frequently in Aramaic, at one time the vernacular, and not in Hebrew, the language of the schoolmen. But there is also unrestrained fantasy, e.g., stories
of the Sindbad the Sailor type, which were not meant to be be lieved literally. Naturally great play with these has been made by opponents of the Jews, but the authority of the Haggadah has never been absolute. It stands in the same relation to theology as a mediaeval miracle-play to canon law or decretals. Thus, on July 2o-24, 1263, at the great disputation at Barcelona between R. Moses b. Nahman and the dominican Pablo Christiani, the former disarmed his opponent by repudiating the Haggadah, on which Pablo had based his case, and by declaring that the fables were merely points in sermons, expressing at most the individual opinions of the preacher and lacking the sanction of authority.
Nevertheless, the extent of the fantastic must not be exag gerated. In addition to strict truth and *sheer fiction, e.g., between a genuine fact of archaeology or lexicography, recovered in a parable or exemplified in a saying, and an angelic digression of apocalyptic exuberance, there is an intermediate portion which must neither be categorically denied nor accepted absolutely. This element has been described as pragmatic historiography. There are three types of historical writing, the genetic or scien tific, the purely narrative and the pragmatic. Religious historians write pragmatically, but this does not mean fraudulently. Their mental environment subconsciously influences them and they tend to prefer that record which appeals to their own age. They ex pect to find in the past elements mature only in their own day. But ancient historians must not be brushed aside because they fail to conform to modern standards. Their writings must be carefully tested. This is the way to treat the quasi-historical portions of Midrash. Here we find subjective history but earlier examples may be seen in the Bible, by examining Chronicles, which is a "Midrash" to Kings. Thus the life of Joash in 2 Chron. xxiii. differs in some details from that in 2 Ki. xi. and affords an illustration of the chronicler's methods. (On the Midrashic nature of Chronicles, see W. A. L. Elmslie's Introduction in Camb. Bible, Chronicles, 1916.) Probably the chronicler had access to sources now lost and in the account of Joash a Midrash is actually mentioned. But such Midrashic compilations can be traced even before his date (4th century B.c.).