v. 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 certain point of the lecture into a clearer light. Thus, e. g., the lecturer speaking of Eliezer, Abra ham's faithful servant, and being desirous to show that he alone was worth a host of servants, re marked that Eliezer + 30 + 10 + 70 + 7 + 200 = 318) is exactly as much as the three hundred and eighteen young men mentioned in Gen. sir,. 14. Comp. Midrash Rabbath on Gen., ch. xlii. When it is remembered that the Hebrew letters were commonly used as numbers, it will be easily understood how the audience would be re joiced to see a word converted so dexterously into figures.
vi. To relieve the discourse of its monotony, the lecturer 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 sthetical canons,' continues Dr. Jellinek, we shall find in it less arbitrariness and more order. We shall, moreover, 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 interpolations. For the confirmation of our msthetical canons, let the reader compare and analyse chapters ii and v. of lifidrash Rabboth on Genesis' (Ben Chananja iv., 383, fr.) 4. Halachic and Hagadic rules of interpretation —The preceding exposition of the method and plan of the Midrash has prepared us to enter upon the Halachic and Hagadic rules of interpretation which were collected and systematised by Elieser b. Jose the Galilean (4$4$3;1 +Dr), one of the principal in terpreters of the Pentateuch in the 2d century of the Christian era. According to this celebrated Doctor, whose sayings are so frequently recorded in the Talmud and the Siphri, there are thirty-two rules (min corin webv) whereby the Bible is to be interpreted, which are as follows :— i. By the superfluous use of the three particles lift, D3, and IN, the Scriptures indicate in a three fold manner that something more is included in the text than the apparent declaration would seem to imply. Thus, e.g., when it is said, Gen. xxi. 1, And the Lord visited (nle, 7l) Sarah ;' the superfluous rm, which sometimes denotes with, is used to indicate that with Sarah the Lord also visited other barren women. The second MI is used superfluously in the passage take also your herds, and also (DI) your flocks' (Exod. xii. 32), to indicate that Pharaoh also gave the Israelites sheep and oxen, in order to corroborate the declaration made in Exod. x. 25 ; whilst the superfluous IN, 2 Kings ii. 14, he also (IN) had smitten the waters,' indicates that more wonders were shown to Elisha at the Jordan than to Elijah, as it is declared in 2 Kings ii. 9. This rule is called inclusion, more meant than said.
ii. By the superfluous use of the three particles and j0, the Scriptures point out something which is to be excluded. Thus, e.g., IN in Gen. vii. 23, And Noah only (IN) remained,' shows that even Noah was near death, thus indicating exclu sion. The superfluous pi `only (pi) the fear of God is not in this place' (Gen. xx. I I), shows that the inhabitants were not altogether godless ; whilst in in Exod. xviii. 13, And the people stood by Moses from (p) the morning unto the evening,' indicates that it did not last all day, but only six hours (Sabbath, io a). This rule is called
tnrn, diminution, exclusion.
iii. If words denoting inclusion follow each other, several things are included. Thus in I Sam. xvii. 36, 'Thy servant slew also (Mt D3) the lion, also (M) the bear,' three superfluous expressions follow each other, to show that he slew three other animals besides the two expressly mentioned in the text. This rule is called inclusion after inclusion.
iv. If words denoting exclusion follow each other, several things are excluded. Thus in Num. xii. 2, bath the Lord indeed only spoken to Moses? hath he not also spoken to us ?' the superfluous expressions pi and `Iti which follow each other denote that the Lord spoke to Aaron and Miriam before he spoke to Moses, thus not only without the lawgiver being present to it, but before God spoke to him, and not only did he speak to Aaron, but also to Miriam, so that there is here a twofold exclusion. If two or more inclusive words follow each other, and do not admit of being explained as indicative of inclusion, they denote exclusion. Thus, e.g., if the first word includes the whole, whilst the second only includes a part, the first inclusion is modified and diminished by the second. If, on the contrary, two or more exclusive words follow each other, and do not admit of being explained as indicative of exclusion, they denote inclusion. Thus, e.g., if the first excludes four, whilst the second only excludes two, two only remain included, so that the second exclusive expression serves to include or increase. This rule is called cipn vrn, exclusion after exclusion, and the two excep tions are respectively denominated llitt nyth t4.$ri 'Inn, inclusion after inclusion ing diminution, and t4t.', wipn int.t j't.t No+, exclusion after exclusion effecting increase (comp. Pessachinz, 23 a ; .7onta, 43 a ; llIegilla, 23 b ; Kiddushin, 2/ b ; Baba Kama, 45 b ; Sanhe drin, 15 a ; with Menachoth, 34 a).
v. Expressed inference from the minor to the major, called eren $p. An example of this rule is to be found in Jer. xii. 5, If thou hast run with the footmen, and they have wearied thee, [inference] then how cant thou contend with horses?' vi. Implied inference fi-om the minor to the major, called milt, ii ri' 57. This is found in Ps. xv. 4, He sweareth to his own hurt, and changeth not,' hence how much less if he swears to his ad vantage (comp. Maccoth, 24a).
vii. Inference from analogy or parallels, called Tilt, ;rt. Thus it is said of Samuel, that there shall no razor come upon his head' (r Sam. i. 1), and the same language is used with respect to Samson, no razor shall come on his head' (Judg. xiii. 5) ; whereupon is based the deduction from analogy, that just as Samson was a Nazarite so also Samuel (Nasir, 66 a, and see rule 2 in the articles HILLEL and ISHMAEL B. ELISA of this Cyclopredia).
viii. Building of the father Pt: PZ) is the pro. perty of any subject which is made the starting. point, and to constitute a rule (1N, a father) for all similar subjects. Thus, e. g., in Exod. Hi. 4, it is stated. God called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said Moses, Moses ;' hence it con cludes, that whenever God spoke to Moses, he ad dressed him in the same manner. For the different modifications of this rule, see 3 and 4 in the article