Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 16.djvu/304

Rh 286 MIDRASH valuable notices on logic, psychology, metaphysics, theo logy, theosophy, aesthetics, rhetoric, poetry, mathematics, geometry, astronomy, zoology, botany, biology, morphology, chemistry, medicine, physics, &c. The statesman parti cularly if he be inclined to follow the Psalmist s advice &quot;from the ancients I gather understanding &quot; (cxix. 100) will find here valuable information on ancient ethnography in the full sense of the term politics, political economy, law, military science, naval affairs, &c. The true scholar will find out by the study of the Agadah that many a dis covery thought to belong to a recent age was well known to these ancient doctors. The sources of the Agadah are five : (1) the Targumim and especially those on the Prophets and Hagiographa ; (2) the non-canonical Mishnah (Mathnitho Boraitho ; see MISHNAH), which contains many valuable pieces, the age of which is often anterior, in essence if not in form, not only to those contained in the canonical Mishnah, but also to the sayings of the New Testament ; (3) the canonical (officially recognized) Mishnah, which contains several entire treatises of an Agadic nature, as Aboth, 1 Middoth, &c., 2 and numerous pieces scattered here and there among the Halakhah; (4) both Talmudim* (the Palestinian and Babylonian), which have thousands of Agadic notices interspersed in their Halakhoth ; and (5) the Midrashim, KO.T i^o-^rjv. It is of the last alone, as represented by their principal collections, that we give an historical enumeration here : (1) Megillath Ta anith is an historical Midrash consisting of twelve Perakim, and is called so on the principle of lucus a non lucendo, seeing that in it are enumerated the days of the year on which a Jew must not fast. The Aramaic part of it alone consti tutes the real Megillah, and belongs to the beginning of the 2d Christian century. 4 The editio princeps came out at Mantua, 1513, 4to ; but cheap editions have been printed at Warsaw and elsewhere. (2) Sepher Yezirah is a philosophico-cabbalistic Midrash divided into six Perakim, which, in their turn, are subdivided into Mishniyyoth. It is variously ascribed to the patriarch Abraham and to K. Akibah, the illustrious teacher, who suffered martyrdom under Hadrian. To this rabbi the book, no doubt, belongs both in substance and form. 5 It has gone through numerous editions, the ed. princ. being of 1562 (Mantua, 4to), and has been translated into Latin, German, and English (New York, 1877). (3) Othiyyoth de-Rabbi Akibah is a gwa -cabbali-tic Midrash on the alphabet, belonging, in essence if not in form, to the aforesaid teacher and martyr. Ed. princ., Constantinople, 1520, 4to. (4) Massekheth Hekhaloth is an astronomico-cabbalistic Midrash in seven Perakim. It is ascribed to R, Yishma el the high priest. 1 A valuable edition of tins treatise (in Hebrew and English) has been published by Dr C. Taylor, Cambridge, 1878. - To these we may add, for the sake of convenience, although they do not, strictly speaking, belong to the canonical Mishnah, the Perek Rabbi Meir and the Agadic parts of the Massekhtoth Ketannoth. 3 Two collections of Talmudic Ayadoth were made early in the 16th century: (1) Haggadoth Hattalmud, Constantinople, 1511, folio, of which apparently only five copies are in existence, the finest of these being preserved in the University Library of Cambridge ; and (2) En Ya akob (or En Yisrael], of which numerous and cheap editions exist, the ed. princ. being that of Salonika, 1516-22. 4 Almost all that the latest critics have said concerning the age of the various Targumim and Midrashim will have to be unsaid. Not only are negative statements difficult of proof ; in this case they are absolutely incorrect. We shall only give two examples. The s tate- ment &quot; Vayyikra Rabbah cannot be early, as Rashi did not know of it, since he nowhere mentions it,&quot; is doubly incorrect : Rashi does quote it (e.g., on Haggai i. 1). Again the statement &quot;We must not omit to observe that no early Jewish commentator Rashi, Ibn Ezra, &c. mentions the Targum either to Proverbs or to Job and Psalms; Nathan ben Jechiel (12th century) is the first who quotes it,&quot; contains a re- ductio ad absurdum in itself. For Nathan b. Yehiel was, as i:3 well known, a somewhat older contemporary of Rashi (ob. 1105), and lived full a hundred years before Ibn Ezra ! 5 See T. B., Synhedrin, Q5b and 676. In the former place it distinctly speaks of the Sepher Yezirah (HTX* ISO), and, although in the latter place it speaks of the Ililekhoth Yezirah (iTT^ ITD?!!), there cannot be a doubt that Sepher pDD) and Ililekhoth (Dl^il) are there identical. Moreover, Mishniyyoth and Halakhoth are, in a cer tain sense, convertible terms (see MISHNAH) ; and our book (as remarked above) consists of Mishniyyoth. Judging from internal evidence on the one hand, and from what is known of R. Yishma el in the Talmudim and Midrashim (Babli Berakhoth, la and elsewhere) on the other hand, there seems to be no valid reason for doubting that he is the author of this small but sublime book. This Midrash is printed in the collection Arezr Lebanon (Venice, 1601, 4to) under the title of &quot; Pirckc Hekhaloth&quot; and &quot; Massekheth Hekhaloth,&quot; and a MS. of it is preserved in the University Library of Cambridge (Dd. 10. 11. 7. 2). The work, however, called &quot;The Greater and the Lesser Hekhaloth,&quot; in thirty Perakim, printed in this century, somewhere in Poland, contains, besides the ancient literature, a good deal of matter which is of much later date. (5) Seder Olam (the Greater and the Lesser) are two historical Midrashim, the former of which belongs to the 2d century, whilst the latter (which is a mere extract of the former) belongs to a late age indeed (the Gaonaic). They have been repeatedly printed, always together, the ed. princ. being Mantua, 1513, 4 to. (6) Haggadah slid Pesah is a liturgical Midrash of the middle of the 2d century, as far as its main portions go. It exists now in three principal and several minor recensions in accordance with the various rituals (see MAHZOII), and is recited at the domestic service of the first two Passover evenings. The editions are too numerous to be mentioned, the ed. princ. being Constantinople, 1505, folio. (7) Megillath Antiokhos treats ostensibly, as its name indicates, of the sufferings of the Jews under Antiochus Epiphanes, and their deliverance from his tyranny, but in reality of their sufferings under Hadrian and their deliverance under Antoninus Pius. The Aramaic text, with the exception of a few interpolations, belongs to the middle of the 2d century. This little &quot;roll&quot; was for the first time published by Filipowsky (London, 1851, 32mo). A MS. copy of the Hebrew is preserved in the University Library of Cambridge (Dd. 8. 34). (8) Zohar (Midrash Hazzohar, Midrasho shel Rabbi Shim eon b. Yohai, Midrash Yehi Or, &c. ) is a cabbalistic Midrash ou the Pen tateuch, Canticles, Ruth, and part of Lamentations. It is variously ascribed to the famous R. Shim eon (disciple of R. Akibah, &c.) and to R. Mosheh b. Shemtob of Leon (a second-rate cabbalist of the time of Nahmanides and Ibn Addereth). The Zohar belongs, strictly speaking, to neither of these, whilst, in- a certain sense, it belongs to both. The fact is the nucleus of the book is oi&quot; Mishnic times, and R. Shim eon b. Yohai was the author of the Zohar in the same sense that R. Yohanan was the author of the Palestinian Talmud, i.e., he gave the first impulse to the composi tion of the book. But R. Mosheh of Leon, 6 on the other hand, was the first not only to copy and disseminate the Zohar in Europe, but also to disfigure it by sundry explanatory interpolations. For more details see Lumby, &quot;Introduction to the Epistle of Jude,&quot; in the Speaker s Commentary, vol. iv. p. 388. The first two editions of the Zohar 7 on the Pentateuch came out simultaneously (Mantua, 1558-60, 4to, and Cremona, 1558, folio), and the ed. princ. on Canticles, Ruth, and part of Lamentations came out at Salonika (1597, 4to) The best, though by no means critical, edition on the Pentateuch is that of Brody, 1873, Svo. Of translations, such as they are, there exist those of Knorr v. Rosenroth, Kabbala dcnudata (vol. i., Sulzbach, 1677, and vol. ii, Frankfort, 1684, 4to), and Tholuclc, Wichtigc Stellen, &c. (Berlin, 1824, Svo), &c. 8 (9) Pesikotho 9 (commonly, but by mistake, called Pcsikta) dcrab Kohano is a homiletic Midrash consisting of thirty-two Pesiktoth for the principal festivals and fasts, and the historically noted sabbaths and other days. It is of the end of the 3d or the beginning of the 4th century. Having been but rarely quoted since the 12th century, so that most scholars knew of it only 6 R. Mosheh of Leon is a fair sample of the mediocrity of his time in cabbalistic lore, and combined, as is usual, with his mediocrity an illimitable vanity; see MS. Dd. 11. 22 (Cambridge University Library), leaf 2a: &quot; And I adjure every one who should deeply study this book, or who should copy it, or read it, that he do not blot out my name from my property (inheritance), for I have composed it. . . .&quot; This statement alone would suffice to prove that R. Mosheh of Leon could never have ascribed a book composed by himself to anybody else. 7 The Zohar, cleared of the main works by which it is surrounded, and of the interpolations by which it has been disfigured both by its irst European copyist and by others down even to our own days, was begun in Palestine late in the 2d or early in the 3d century, anil finished, at the latest, in the 6th or 7th century. It is impossible Ben lissance, as both language and contents clearly show. &quot; Whilst the principal editions of the many textual extracts made from the Zohar (as the Iddttoth, &c.) need not be specified here, those of the following supplementary and kindred works ought to be men tioned: (1) Tikkune Hazzohar (ed. princ. Mantua, 1557, 4to), and 2) Zohar Hadash (ed. princ. Cracow, 1603). Nor should the Kontres viissepher Hazzohar, Hibburo Tinyono (by the otherwise very learned Yitshak b. Mosheh of Satanow) be passed over. It is a mere imitation of the Zohar, an imposition of a kind which is a disgrace to literature. 11 For the three Midrashim Mfkhilto, Sij&amp;gt;hro, and Siphere see under MISHNAH.
 * hat it should have been composed after that time and before the