ii. All repetitions of words as well as the con struction of the finite verb with the infinite, e. g., 1)v:121 unvn, 3Vil, have a peculiar signifi cation, and must be explained. Some, however, maintain that the Bible, being written in human lan guage, employs these repetitions 0C/5J blil )1) in accordance with the uses loquendi (Mishna .Baba Mezia, ii. 9 ; xii. 3 ; Gemara, ibid., 31; Jerusalem Nedarim, i. 1; Kethuboth, 77 b; Berachoth, 31 b).
Letters are to be taken fram one word and joined to another or formed into new words. Thus, e. g., )r.6n,1 then ye shall give his inheritance unto his kinsman (Num. xxvii. I), is explained by 15 thn3 onnn, and .re shall give the inheritance of his wife to him, i. e., the husband by taking away the 1 from 1n5ro and the 5 from 11tv5, thus obtaining the word 15; and it is deduced therefrom that a man inherits the property of his (1NV) wife (comp. Baba Bathra, 6; Menachoth, 74 a). This rule is called rp-na rvirn iv. A word Li to be explained both with the pre ceding and following words. Thus ntyrt.
-on nnn n+-un nntv nS 15 rb trot., and Sarai, Abraham's wife, bare him no children; and she had an 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 (r6116); and then again, to him e., Abraham) and to her (i. e., Sarai) there was an handmaid (rOtZ1 n51 This rule is called 1+)95 trru $-Ipu, and is not admitted by some (comp. Sabbath, 32 b ; Menachath, 19 a).
v. The letters of a word are sometimes transposed.
Thus 6ny, our labour (Dent. xxv. 7), is made to mean our children, 1)thr, by transposing the n and the 5.
vi. Letters resembling each other in sound or appearance, or belonging to the same organ of speech, are interchanged. Thus ;on 6 mv ;rim ]ay' n51p 1:.:71110, Moses commanded us the law, an inheritance of the congregation of 7acob (Dent. xxxiii. 4), is explained, the law which Moses has given us, is the BETROTHED or WIFE of the congregation of 7acob, by changing the 1 in l'in10 for N, and ry for The alteration produced by rules v. and vi., and which are in the Talmudic and post-Talmudic period generally introduced by the remark npn •46:4', Read not so and so, but so and so, must not be taken for emendations of the text or various readings, but are simply another mode of obtaining an additional meaning of the text. It was argued that as the literal and limited sense of the Bible, read in the stereotyped order, could not yield suffi ciently of the divine and inexhaustible mind couched in those letters, every transposition, commutation, etc., ought to be resorted to in order to obtain as
much as possible of the infinite idea. Especially as every such effort yielded such a sense and a meaning as thoroughly harmonized with what might justly be expected from Holy Scripture. It was therefore regarded as probable that the Bible designed to indicate it in addition to what the regular order and reading of the words conveyed. It must also be remarked that some of these rules, especially those which involved an alteration of the text and a departure from the literal meaning, were not used in Halachic exegesis, and that the Hagadic 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 every time of need, or connect the legends about Scriptural characters with the Biblical record.
5. Importance of the Halachic and Hagadic .tre,:esis.—When it is borne in mind that the anno tators and punctuators of the Hebrew text, and the translators of the ancient versions, were Jews im pregnated with the theological opinions of the nation, and prosecuted their Biblical labours in harmony with these opinions, and the above-named exegetical rules, the importance of the Halachic and Hagadic exegesis to the criticism of the He brew 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 overrated. If it be true—and few will question the fact—that every successive English Version, either preceding or following the Reforma tion, reflects the peculiar notions about theology, church government, and politics of each period and 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 intend ing to deceive, or wilfully to alter the text, should by the process of the Alidrash introduce or indi cate, in their Biblical labours, the various opinions to which shifting circumstances gave rise. Let a few specimens from the Hebrew text, and the ancient versions, suffice to illustrate this Midrashic process, and its paramount importance to Biblical criticism.