Terms of Scriptural Interpretation: A Study in Hebrew Semantics

M. Gertner

doi:10.1017/S0041977X00056226

Terms of Scriptural Interpretation: A Study in Hebrew Semantics

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 December 2009

M. Gertner

Article contents

Extract
References

Get access

Rights & Permissions

Extract

In the last centuries before the current era and in the early centuries after its beginning the major intellectual and literary activity in the realms (first) of the Jewish and (later) of the Christian communities was wholly centred in the field of interpretation. The OT, as the mainspring and foundation of all religious thought and teaching in those days and in those spheres, was the subject of this interpretation activity. In both the Jewish and the Christian world the Bible was considered to be not only holy and authoritative, but also, and this is in our context more important, the only and exclusive source of divine religious doctrine and of good ethical behaviour. Also historical events, political or religious, were seen, even foreseen, and evaluated from the aspect of this holy source of divine wisdom and planning.

Type: Articles
Information: Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies , Volume 25 , Issue 1 , February 1962 , pp. 1 - 27

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0041977X00056226 [Opens in a new window]
Copyright: Copyright © School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London 1962

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

^{page 1 note 1} cf. Babl. Megillah 6a and Gen. Rabba lxiii, 9 (on Gen. xxv, 23): Esau and Jacob as Rome and Jerusalem.

^{page 1 note 2} In those days this was the case also with Homer's songs. See Buffiere, F., Les mythes d'Homere et la pense'e grecque, 1956Google Scholar; Bahner, H., Griechische Mythen in Christlicher Deutung, 1957Google Scholar.

^{page 1 note 3} cf. Danielou, Jean, Sacramentum futuri, 1950Google Scholar; see also Gardner, Helen, The limits of literary criticism, 1957, 10, 12–16 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 1 note 4} cf., e.g., Isa. vii, 14, the Hebrew ‘almah, the Greek (in LXX and Matt, i, 23) parthé'nos, Vulgate virgo; Luke i, 31, 34, obviously took ‘‘almah to be a virgin’, but see Qimhi ad. loc, ‘‘almah is not a virgin’; cf. Driver, G. E., Times Literary Supplement, 19 May 1961Google Scholar (letters to the editor): ‘the Hebrew ‘almah…a young woman… whether virgin or not, the Greek parthénos…nothing to do with virginity’.

Another example: Isa. lxiii, 9, if we read it with LXX, speaks against angels acting instead of God in the history of the people; if we read the verse with Babl. Ta'anith 16a the prophet conveys the daring idea that in all the afflictions of the people God is also ‘afflicted’; and the two interpretations depend wholly on the reading of the one word sr (sir ‘messenger’, with LXX; sar ‘afflicted’, with Talmud).

^{page 2 note 1} Hodayoth ii, 32 (doreshey ialaqoth); the term is usually translated by ‘smooth, false speaking’, but balaq also stands for ‘dividing’; compare the two renderings of Jfalag in Hos. x, 2, suggested by RV, ‘divided’ or ‘smooth’; a midrashioally minded writer, as the Sectarian certainly was, undoubtedly played on the double meaning of the term; Knox, in our time, did this— ‘half loyal, half false’, taking Hosea's halaq to contain both notions ‘ half’ and ‘ false’.

^{page 2 note 2} cf. Pal. Shabbath 16, 1; Babl. Horayoth 13b.

^{page 2 note 3} Compare Isa. xxviii, 11; the Greek heteros, by which abereth is rendered in LXX, also stands for kakos; Homer used it in the sense of ‘ otherwise than should be, wrongly’, cf. Liddell and Scott.

^{page 3 note 1} Pesher Hab. ii, 8; Manual of Discipline viii, 15.

^{page 3 note 2} Babl. Pirqey abhoth 6, 1.

^{page 3 note 3} Tanhuma, Huqqath 8.

^{page 3 note 4} 1 Kings xiii, 20—; Babl. Bab. mesi‘a’ 48—.

^{page 3 note 5} The original text of the Aaronic Blessing in Num. vi, 25——is paraphrased in Man. of Disc, ii, 3—. Both Qumran and Midrash were preceded in this intellectualizing interpretation of the old cultic text by the Psalmist's hymn on the Torah which paraphrases the original (Ps. cxix, 135) and by (Ps. cxix, 29). The expression talmud (here in Siphre) is the same as midrash; cf. Bacher, Terminologie, i, 201; compare also Siphre Deut., ed. Friedmann, p. 135b (on Deut. xxxii, 13), and see Finkelstein, L.; ‘Midrash, Halakhot and Aggadot’, in Y. F. Boer jubilee volume, 1960, 42–5Google Scholar. Da'ath (in the Qumran paraphrase) is certainly also meant to be the knowledge of Torah, cf. Babl. Sotah 49a, .

^{page 4 note 1} See Gesenius-Buhl, Handwōrterbuch; see also Soden, W. von, Akkadisches Handwōrterbuch, Lief. 2, p. 163Google Scholar, and the Chicago Assyrian dictionary, Vol. in (D), p. 110 (these two references I owe to Dr. H. W. F. Saggs, S.O.A.S.); concerning the connexion Professor 6. R. Driver (in a letter) drew my attention to and, ‘possibly’, to etc.

^{page 5 note 1} cf. Babl. Sukkah 20a, Babl. Sanhedrin 21b, Abhoth d. R. Nathan 34, Gen. Rabba xxxvi, 12, and Pal. Megillah 4, 1.

^{page 5 note 2} The verb ‘ to find ’ occurs in biblical as well as in midrashic literature in connexion with WIT; compare Isa. Iv, 6, Deut. iv, 29, 1 Chron. xxviii, 9, Siphre Deut., p. 87b, Cant. Rabba, iv, 21, , Othiyyoth d. R. Aqiba, in Aqiba, R., ed. Kannowitz, , 1956, p. 88Google Scholar, .

^{page 5 note 3} See Epstein, J. N., Prolegomena to tannaitic lit., 1957, 502–3Google Scholar, and Kaufmann, Y., Toledotk ha'emunah, III, 1960, 334Google Scholar (Ezra's midrash by heqqesh analogy, one of Hillel's methods of interpretation, cf. Pal. Pesahim 6, 1); compare Kaufmann, Y., op. cit., I, 1954, 213, and VIII, 1960, 283Google Scholar (Ezra's midrash by text-blending, i.e. ‘ enriching ’ one text by another; cf. Pal. Bosh hashanah 3, 5: the words of the Torah are poor, i.e. unclear, in their place, and rich, i.e. elucidating, in another place).

^{page 6 note 1} Bacher, , Terminologie, I, 25Google Scholar, interprets the verb in Ezra vii, 10, Ps. cxix, 45, 155, and in 1 Chron. xxviii, 8, as ‘ den Schrifttext auslegen ’. See Ibn Ezra on Ps. cxi, 2. However, the only instance where such an interpretation of darash comes possibly nearest to the text's meaning is Ezra's lidhrosh.

^{page 6 note 2} Mishnah Sanhedrin 4, 1; Mishnah Bab. mesi‘a’ 2, 7.

^{page 6 note 3} Pal. Pesahim 6, 1 and Siphra, ed. Weiss, p. la and p. 3a (darash in connexion with Hillel's seven and R. Ishmael's thirteen ‘rules’ ); Babl. Qiddushin 22b (an allegorical interpretation, doresh, by R. Yohanan b. Zakkay); Mekhilta 64b (’al tigrey); Siphre 33b (sares).

^{page 6 note 4} Mishnah Sheqalim 1, 4.

^{page 6 note 5} Babl. Yoma' 42b.

^{page 6 note 6} Pal. Pe'ah 2, 4,.

^{page 6 note 7} Babl. Bab. mesi‘a’ 104a, .

^{page 7 note 1} Lam. Rabba ii, 19; see also L.Finkelstein in Y. F. Boer jubilee vol., 36.

^{page 7 note 2} In the biblical phrase (Isa. lxv, 1), according to LXX here and to LXX in Ezek. xiv, 3 (), God reveals Himself (έμФαv*s) or answers (ά*okpiθ*); in Midrash (Siphra, p. la) the Torah answers, ); compare p. 5, n. 2, above, about ‘finding’.

^{page 7 note 3} In this connexion the synonymous expressions (Siphre Num., p. 50a), (Siphra, p. 109a), (Tosephta Shebhu'oth 1, 8) are worth noting; compare also the biblical parallelism doresh—dobher (Esther x, 3).

^{page 7 note 4} Babl. Derekh eres 1, R. Yose b. Kipper, Eccles. Rabba i, 37, R. Hanina b. Aqabhya, Gen. Rabba xxiii, 11, R. Abahu.

^{page 7 note 5} Babl. Beysah 15b, R. Eliezer, Babl. Bab. balhra 10a, R. Y. b. Shalom, Babl. Niddah 16b, R. Hanina.

^{page 7 note 6} Mishnah Pesahim 10, 4.

^{page 7 note 7} Where darash is intended to denote ‘interpretation’ and not mere ‘reciting’ a clear distinction is made between and ; compare Mishnah Yoma' 1, 6.

^{page 7 note 8} See also Epstein, J. N., Prolegomena to tannaitic lit., 514Google Scholar.

^{page 8 note 1} Siphra la, ; Siphre 82b, ; Mishnah Sheqalim 1, 4, ; Siphre 68b, ; Pal. Pesahim 9, 2, ; Tosephta Sotah 7, ; Pal. Sotah 2, 2, ; Babl. Shabbath 55a, ; Pai. Pesahim 9,2, ; Baw. Hagigah 12a, .

^{page 8 note 2} Yoma' 42b, .

^{page 8 note 3} Mishnah Hagigah 2, 1, ; Babl. Sanhedrin 99b, ; Babl. Beysah 15b, .

^{page 8 note 4} Tosephta Sanhedrin 7,11, S73P. Rabbinic language was so accustomed to the u se of darash—midrash in the sense of text interpretation that, at times, these terms were even applied to any (non-biblical) legal documents, cf. Babl. Yebhamoth 117a, ; see also p. 6, n. 1, above.

^{page 9 note 1} Pal. Sotah 2, 2, ; Pal. Pe'ah 2, 4, ; Cant. Sabba vi, 13, ; Siphre 82b, , see also p. 8, n. 1, above; Babl. ‘Erubhin 21b, See Yalqwt Ps. , 1, 737 9111, where ‘al means ’with reference to’, like the Qumranic standard expression (Pesher Hab. i, 2).

^{page 9 note 2} Babl. Abhoth 1, 17, (act), Gen. Rabba xlii, 4, TPTa HT (result).

^{page 9 note 3} Mishnah Nedarim 4, 3, (text); Babl. Abhoth d. R. Nathan 18, (book).

^{page 9 note 4} Pal. Nazir 7, 2, (tradition); but see Epstein, J. N., Prolegomena to tannaitic lit., 508Google Scholar, taking midrash here in the usual sense. Babl. Menahoth 44a, (college).

^{page 9 note 5} Mekhilta 59b; Siphra, 85b; Siphre Deut. 83a.

^{page 9 note 6} See LXX, 1 Chron. xxiv, 22 (darash), Num. xv, 34 (peresh), Gen. xl, 8 (pathar), Dan. v, 16 (pashar), Lev. xxvi, 46 (haqaq), Dan. iv, 21 (gazar).

^{page 9 note 7} See Job xiii, 27, Ben-Yehudah Thesaurus, p. 1719, n. 1.

^{page 9 note 8} See LXX, Judges v, 14, , έξεpεuvωvΤεus, where Gesenius-Buhl think that LXX had , an unnecessary assumption; mehoqeqim can also be ‘searching’. Compare LXX, Prov. xxxi, 5.

^{page 10 note 1} Babl. Qiddushin 49b; Siphra, 111a.

^{page 10 note 2} Qimhi has sepher midrash ‘book of inquiry’, which suits his interpretation of the expression. The original has midrash sepher (2 Chron. xxiv, 27).

^{page 10 note 3} Zunz, , Die Gottesdienstlichen Vortrage d. Juden, 1892, 33Google Scholar; Kuenen, A., Historisch-Kritische Einl. i.d. Būchern d. AT, 1890, 183Google Scholar; Driver, S. B., Introduction to the lit. of Ihe OT, 1913, 529Google Scholar; Segal, M. H., Tarbiz, xvn, 1946, 196Google Scholar; Bacher, W., Terminologie, I, 105Google Scholar; Epstein, J. N., Prolegomena to tannaitic lit., 1957, 105Google Scholar. See also Wellhausen, , 105Prolegomena, 1885, 272Google Scholar; Welch, A. C., The work of the Chronicler (Schweich Lectures, 1938), 1939, 54Google Scholar.

^{page 11 note 1} See Zeitlin, S., ‘Midrash: a historical study’, JQR, NS, XLIV, 1, 1953, 24Google Scholar; he explains midrash in both places as ‘records of prophecies and interpretations of the inquiries of the Kings’. This is in line with Qimhi's explanation, apart from ‘interpretations’.

^{page 11 note 2} See LXX and Vulgate, 2 Kings viii, 5, mesapper, εξηovμεvou, narraret; 1 Chron. xvi, 24, sapperu, *ξηΥεîσθε, narrate.

^{page 11 note 3} Babl. Sanhedrin 106b.

^{page 12 note 1} Sanhedrin 5a mehoqeq; see also R. Aqiba, ed. Kannowitz, p. 88; Eccles. Rahba xii, 8 (kokhdbhim).

^{page 12 note 2} See p. 2, n. 1.

^{page 12 note 3} Lev. Rabba ix, 2, on Ps. 1, 23, , ‘these are the scribes and teachers’; AV there renders derelch as ‘conversation’.

^{page 13 note 1} Babl. Qiddushin 49b.

^{page 13 note 2} See Arndt-Gingrich, Greek-English lex., 217, ethos both ‘custom’ and ‘law’; also halakhah is both ‘law’ and ‘tradition’, see Siphre Num. 19b (on Num. x, 8) and Siphra 6a (on Lev. i, 5) where halakhah and shemu‘ah ‘tradition’ are used synonymously.

^{page 13 note 3} Babl. Sanhedrin 99b.

^{page 13 note 4} Sanhedrin 88b.

^{page 14 note 1} Compare 2 Tim. ii, 15, 16; the phrase λό … whioh AV renders ‘dividing the word’ is certainly intended to mean ‘interpreting’ the word; ϊoμĚνω stands in Greek also for ‘logical division’ and ‘precision in expression’ (see Liddell and Scott, 1804); see Amdt-Gingrich, 584 (ω**) and 829 (**); Liddell and Scott, 1250 (**) on the phrase here in Timothy: ‘teach it aright’. But surely ‘dividing’, ‘cutting’ is, as we shall see below, the basic meaning of most of the Hebrew terms of interpretation (compare peresh and gazar, for instance). Paul urges the recipient of his letter again and again to avoid ‘false’ midrashim, false interpretations of scriptural texts, and here he demands a proper perush, a correct ‘dividing’ of them, for ‘profane and vain babblings … increase … ungodliness’. NEB translates: ‘driving a straight furrow’, taking the ‘labourer’ to be a ploughman. But whatever the image may be the meaning of it here is interpretation. See above, p. 9, nn. 6—8, and the Qumranic Zadokite Document vi, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, about ‘digging’ and the ‘interpreter of the Torah’. Compare Liddell and Scott, 395, s.v. diaireo ‘to divide and to interpret’. Incidentally, Babl. Sanhedrin 90a derives the doctrine of resurrection from a midrashic interpretation of Deut. xxxi, 16, based on a non-masoretie subdivision of the verse; such ‘interpretation by division’ is perhaps meant here in Paul's letter.

^{page 14 note 2} See Ibn Ezra, Rashi, Mesudoth David, ad. loc. See also Oesterley, W. O. E., The Psalms, repr., 1953, 266Google Scholar, ‘I will solve my dark sayings with the harp’.

^{page 14 note 3} See Bacher, Terminologie, II, 175. Torczyher in Ben-Yehudah, Thesaurus, p. 5305, n. 2, refers ephtah to ‘ozen ‘ear’, but the structure of the verse does not agree with this.

^{page 14 note 4} Bacher, Terminologie, I, 163, confuses these two applications of pathah.

^{page 15 note 1} See Gen. Rabba i, 1, .

^{page 15 note 2} Siphra 79a.

^{page 15 note 3} Babl. Menahoth 65a; al. Sheqalim 5, 1.

^{page 15 note 4} In Albeck's new Mishnah edition, 1952, the reading with the preposition be is still given as the main version.

^{page 15 note 5} Pal. Hagigah 2, 1; Bacher, Terminologie, II, 176, suggests the reading pathart instead of pathaht. This is not necessary.

^{page 15 note 6} See Arndt-Gingrich, 186, quoting only Aeneas Gaz., a fifth-century author. Rieu, The four Gospels (Penguin Classics), translates (influenced by verse 31) Luke's phrase in verse 32 by ‘he opened our eyes’; such a rendering is only possible by ignoring the midrashie background of the NT Greek.

^{page 16 note 1} Liddell and Scott, 1327, s.v. **, brings as one of its meanings ‘to explain’. Arndt-Gingrich, 628, ‘to spread, to point out, to explain’. Compare Acts xxviii, 23.

^{page 16 note 2} See Gen. Rabba xxii, 22, where R. S. b. Yohai uses peresh, in one and the same statement, both in the sense of ‘explaining’ and in that of ‘separating’. Compare Arndt—Gingrich, 187, ** ‘special meaning’, and Liddell and Scott, 413, ** ‘define precisely’. As for the qal form parash, we find it in Midrash also, but rarely, in the sense of ‘explaining’, cf. Num. Rabba xiv, 12 .

^{page 16 note 3} Mishnah Sheqalim 1,5 ( ‘explicitly pronounced’); ‘Eduyoth 2, 5 ( ‘specified’); Parah 1,1 ( ‘explain’); Exod. Rabba xxix, 1 (, R. Levy gave a midrashic interpretation to ).

^{page 16 note 4} cf. Gen. Rabba xcviii, 4, R. Bliezer ha-Modai , and in the parallel saying in Babl. Shabbath 55b we have .

^{page 17 note 1} cf. C. Rabin, , The Zadokite Document, 1958, p. 24Google Scholar, on line 14, n. 2.

^{page 17 note 2} Tanhuma, Huqqath 6, .

^{page 17 note 3} See Kashi, ad. loc, ‘elucidated’, Luther, ‘ verdolmetscht’.

^{page 17 note 4} Mishnah Megillah 4, 6 (translation); Pal. Sukkah 5, 3, (explanation of a word); Babl. Bab. mesi‘a’ 41a, (explanation of a halakhic matter); Pal. Bikkurim 3, 3, (a midrashic interpretation of Hab. ii, 19).

^{page 17 note 5} Torczyner in Ben-Yehudah, Thesaurus, 7899; cf. Driver, G. R, Ganaanite myths, 1956, 155Google Scholar.

^{page 17 note 6} Plato, Cratylus, 408a (Loeb Class. Libr. ed., p. 84).

^{page 17 note 7} Buffière, F., Les mythes d'Homère, p. 295Google Scholar, n. 83.

^{page 17 note 8} Lev. Rabba ix, 2, (pronouncing explicitly); Siphre Num. p. 52b, (a herald); Lam. Rabba ii, 18, .

^{page 17 note 9} LXX Eccles. viii, 1; Gen. xl, 8; Dan. v, 8, 26. Both ** and ** also stand in secular Greek for interpretation, see Liddell and Scott and Arndt-Gingrich quoting Polybius and Orphica.

^{page 18 note 1} Yatqul on Eccles. viii, 1, ; Pesiqta d. R. Kahana, ed. Buber, p. 198, .

^{page 18 note 2} Pal. Berahhoth 55b.

^{page 18 note 3} Pal. Bab. mesi‘a’ 9, 12, , two meanings of one scriptural concept described by the verb; Pal. Shabbath 7, 1, with reference to a Mishnah; Gen. Rabba xxix, 8, six allegorical interpretations of Gen. xxix, 2, using the technical term .

^{page 18 note 4} Midrash Ha-gadol, ed. Margulies, 1947, intr. to Gen., p. 39; cf. Lieberman, S., Hellenism in Jewish Palestine, 1950, 70Google Scholar.

^{page 18 note 5} Midr. Ps. ad. loc.; Midrash, following LXX, interprets the Psalmist's ye'asaniy ‘gave me counsel’ as ‘instructed me’, and the stress is, anachronistically, on To4 rah instruction.

^{page 18 note 6} Midr. Ps. ad. loc.

^{page 19 note 1} OED, s.v. ‘interpret’, ‘f. inter between + root corresp. to Skr. prath; to spread abroad’; cf. Liddell and Scott, quoting Herodotus, and Arndt-Gingrich, quoting Plato.

^{page 19 note 2} See Daube, D., ‘Rabbinic methods of interpretation and Hellenic rhetoric’, HUCA, XXII 1949, 239Google Scholar ff.; Ibid., ‘Alexandrian methods of interpretation and the Rabbis’, Festschrift Hans Lewald, 1953, 27Google Scholar ff.; Lieberman, S., Hellenism in Jewish Palestine, 47Google Scholar ff.

^{page 19 note 3} cf. Torczyner in Ben-Yehudah, Thesaurus, p. 5268, n. 1.

^{page 19 note 4} Pal. Shabbath 16, 6, ‘opening’ (LXX already equates pashat with pathah, cf. Lev. i, 1 and Isa. lii, 2); Pal. Sanhedrin 1, 1, ‘order’; Pal. Sukkah 3, 10, ‘reciting’ straight text (Babl. Sukkah 39a has in this Baraitha ; Bacher, Terminologie, I, 86, considers it as a misunderstanding of pashat, yet pashat, like ekteino, could already also have had the meaning of ‘spinning out’ in tannaitie times); Pal. Megillah 1, 11, ) WQ ‘explaining’ (a scriptural phrase), Pal. Ma'aseroth 1, 2, (a, halakhic matter).

^{page 20 note 1} Pal. Sanhedrin 2, 6, , analogical ‘inference’ (in Pal. Shabbath 7, 1, we even find ‘he studied with his son’); Gen. Rabba xviii, 7, , a truly midrashic interpretation (on Gen. ii, 24).

^{page 20 note 2} The Hebrew form of the noun can be peshut like gemul rekhush, and others; it is not necessary to read (with Bacher, Terminologie, n, 173) pashut.

^{page 20 note 3} Babl. Yebhamoth 24a, both forms of the noun, peshut and peshat, in one sentence and in the same sense. See Babl. Sanhedrin 100b where the Aramaic peshat stands for the plain meaning, in contrast to derash.

^{page 20 note 4} Siphre Num., p. 3b.

^{page 20 note 5} Babl. Yebhamoth llb, 24a, and Babl. Shabbath 63a.

^{page 20 note 6} See, e.g., Babl. Hvllin 6a (allegorical interpretation of Prov. xxiii, 1), 133a (allegorical interpretation of Prov. xxv, 20); ‘Arakhin 8b (peshat there contrasting the preceding allegory, but still presenting a typically midrashio interpretation of the parallelisms in the two halves in Ps. xxxvi, 7).

^{page 21 note 1} Torczyner in Ben-Yehudah, Thesaurus, 5266 (note). Yet it is difficult to imagine that such far-fetched interpretations as are presented there under the name of peshat would be ‘widespread’ or ‘widely accepted’. For pashat in the sense of ‘widespread’ see Ben-Yehudah, 5271.

^{page 21 note 2} Torczyner in Ben-Yehudah, Thesaurus, 5266 (note); see also p. 5275, n. 1, where he himself uses the Hebrew term in the sense of a ‘plain ’meaning.

^{page 21 note 3} The two other biblical terms be'er (Deut. i, 5) and hebhin (Isa. xxviii, 9; Neh. viii, 7; Dan. viii, 16; Ps. cxix, 27) do at least occasionally, though very rarely, occur also in Midrash in the sense of ‘explaining’ and of‘interpreting’ (compare Pal. Mo'ed qatan 3, 7, ), Ruth Babba, iv, 1, ; Mishnah ‘Abhodah zarah 3, 5, .

^{page 22 note 1} cf. Gertner, M., ‘The Masorah and the Levites’, Vetus Testamentum, x, 3, 1960, 241–72Google Scholar, where this subject is discussed in detail. The concept ‘Masorah’ is suggested there to be based on (cf. 1 Chron. xv, 22, ); the noun is, then, to be vocalized mesorah, like the Qumran version of Isa. ix, 5, 6 (). In Ezek. xx, 37, we have to read be-mesorath, meaning ‘under the domination’, and the meaning of the concept in connexion with the biblical text, at the time of the Levites, was ‘mastery in recitation’.

^{page 22 note 2} Compare Pesiqta d. R. Kahana, ed. Buber, p. 197b.

^{page 23 note 1} Pal. Megillah 4, 1, Gen. yRabba xxxvi, 12.

^{page 23 note 2} See 1 Chron. xv, 22, and 2 Chron. xxx, 22 (on maslciliym); compare the Syriac rendering of maskiliym, meshabhiyn ‘who praise’, by which the ‘intellectual’ concept is interpreted as an artistic one.

^{page 23 note 3} See Targum and Syriac here; Knox: ‘sound the hymn of praise’ (renders maskil like the Syriac, deviating from Vulgate).

^{page 23 note 4} See above, p. 14, n. 2; compare Babl. Pesahim 117a, where maskil is interpreted as ‘explanatory recitation’, , and see Rashi there. See also Mesudoth David to Ps. lii, 1; and the Qumranic phrase; ‘I shall sing with knowledge’(Man. of Disc, x, 10), again a synthesis of the intellectual and the artistic, which is literally paralleled by 1 Cor. xiv, 15; ‘I will sing with…understanding’.

^{page 23 note 5} Pal. Megillah 1,1, ; see also Midr. Ps. xlv, 1, p. 135, .

^{page 24 note 1} See Encycl. Talmudith, s.v. gezerah shauxih; Schwarz, A., Die hermeneutische Analogies, 1897, p. 9Google Scholar, n. 1 (Isorrhem); Bacher, Terminologie, I, 13, ‘gleiche Satzung’; Levy, Wōrterb. ü.d. Talmudim, s.v. qezerah, p. 320, ‘Wortanalogie’; Strack, Introduction, p. 285, n. 4, quoting Ezek. xli, 13, in favour of gizrah; Ben-Yehudah, Thesaurus, 747 argues from the spelling in most texts.

^{page 24 note 2} S. Lieberman, Hellenism in Jewish Palestine, 59.

^{page 25 note 1} Mishnah Yadayim 4, 3; comp. Finkelstein, Y. F. Boer jubilee vol., 38.

^{page 25 note 2} Pal. Pesahim 6, 1; Babl. Pesahim 66a.

^{page 25 note 3} See above, p. 14, n. 1. The concept seres, meaning ‘to cut’ or ‘to decide’ and used as a technical term in Midrash interpretation, should also be mentioned here; cf. Siphre Num. 33b, , and Pal. Sanhedrin, 1, 2, .

^{page 25 note 4} But in the NEB rendering the notion of gezerah-shawah, of an identical interpretation, is entirely removed.

^{page 25 note 5} See Mekhilta 5b, on Exod. xii, 6

^{page 26 note 1} Babl. Hullin 89a, R. Eliezer b. R. Yose ha-Gelili's haggadhah.

^{page 26 note 2} Babl. Pesahim 115b, the Pesah narrative.

^{page 26 note 3} Babl. Hagigah 3a, Niddah 69b (and 70b), , a homiletic midrash; cf. Pal. Sanhedrim, 11,3, , where according to the parallel in Babl. Sanhedrin 87b, the term aggadah seems also to include halakhic midrashim; see Mar'eh ha-panim ad. loc.; comp. Finkelstein, Y. F. Boer jubilee vol., 31.

^{page 26 note 4} See the preceding note.

^{page 26 note 5} Ps. cxlvii, 19, with God as subject, Mekhilta 5b, with Scripture as subject.

^{page 27 note 1} The noun occurs in Gen. Rabba lx, 2 (on Gen. xxiv, 12).

^{page 27 note 2} cf. Ben-Yehudah, Thesaurus; Ebhen Shoshan, Millon hadash; see Klausner, J., Historiyyah shel ha-siphruth ha-Ibhrith, IV, 362Google Scholar, on J. L. Gordon: .

Article contents

Terms of Scriptural Interpretation: A Study in Hebrew Semantics

Extract

Access options

References

Save article to Kindle

Save article to Dropbox

Save article to Google Drive

Reply to: Submit a response

Your details

You have entered the maximum number of contributors

Conflicting interests