of the Baraita in this recension reads as follows: " Whenever you come across the words of R. Eliezer b. Jose ha-Gelili, make a funnel of your ear." Though this sentence already existed in the Baraita as known to Hadassi (see Bacher, in " Monatsschrif t, xl. 21), it is naturally a later addition taken from the Talmud (Hul. 89«); but it shows that the Baraita of the Thirty -two Rules was early regarded as the work of Eliezer b. Jose ha-Gelili. There are strong grounds for the supposition that the opening sentence of the Baraita ran " R. Eliezer, the son of R. Jose the Galilean, said." This is the reading of Joshua ha-Levi and Isaiah Horowitz (see Bloch, p. 53) and it is believed that the name of the author did not drop out until the addition of the sentence from the Talmud. Consequently, no adequate reasons exist for doubting the authorship of R. Eliezer. Distinction must, however, be made between two The different constituent elements of the Baraita. enumeration of the thirty-two hermeneutic rules in the first section constitutes the real Baraita as composed by R. Eliezer; and the explanations of each rule in the following thirty -two sections form, as it were, a Gemara to the real Baraita. In these thirtytwo sections sayings are cited of the tannaim Akiba, Ishmael, Jose, Nehemiah, Nehorai, Rabbi, Hiyyah, and of the amoraim Johanan and Jose b. Hanina. Although these names, especially the last two. show that portions of the Baraita were interpolated long after Eliezer b. Jose, yet no general
conclusions may be drawn from it with regard to the whole work. The terminology is prevailingly Bacher (" Tertannaitic, even in the second portion. minologie der Jiidischen Schriftauslegung, " p. 101) correctly remarks that the exclusively tannaitic expression " zeker le-dabar " is found at the end of section ix. (compare also the archaic phrase "hashomea' sabur " for which " at sabur " is usually said). The second part, therefore, leaving later interpola-
have sprung tions out of consideration, may from the tannaitic period, probably from the school It is noteworthy that the old scholars of R. Eliezer. make citations from the Baraita which are not found in its present form, thus casting a doubt upon the correctness of the present recension (see Reifmanu, also
pp.
Baraita of Samuel
THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA
521
6, 7).
The thirty-two rules are described as those which are applied in haggadic interpretations (rHJn is the right reading and not minn). This entirely characterizes the method of the BaHermeneutics raita; for although the most important halakic rules of interpretation which originated in the schools of Akiba and of Ismael (Hillel) are incorporated with the syntax, in it, the Baraita deals principally Such treatstyle, and subject-matter of the Bible. ment is of first importance for the interpretation of subordithe Scriptures; but in the Halakah it is of nate value. The Baraita, then, written about 150, may be regarded as the earliest work on Biblical hermeneutics, since Philo's fantastic allegories can hardly be regarded as such. Following are two examples from the Baraita, which illustrate its method. Section ix. (on the ellipphraseology of the Bible) says: "I Chron. xvii.
of the Baraita.
tical
5 reads
'
I
have gone from tent
to tent,
and from
Barak
tabernacle' (pEtDDI)It should read: 'and from (' u-mimishkan tabernacle to tabernacle el mishkan'); but the Bible here employs ellipsis." Section xxi. says that sometimes a clause which ought to stand at the end of sentences, conveying one Thus, the correct idea, is interposed between them. place for verse 17 of Psalm xxxiv. would be after According to the last rule, whole chapters of the 18. Thus, Gen. xv. chronBible should be transferred. These examples suffice to ologically precedes xiv. show that in Palestine scholars early began to devote themselves to a rational Bible exegesis, although free play was at the same time yielded to haggadic interpretation (compare Hermeneutics, Eliezer b. Jose, Samson of Chinon. '
Bibliography: Bacher, Ayada der Tannaiten, ii. 293-398; Bloch, in Kobak's Jexchurun, ix. 47-58 (a polemic against a treatise by Berliner on the Baraita. This treatise is not mentioned by name, aDd is not otherwise known to the writer of idrash Tannaim, the present article); Woll Einhorn, Scfer 1838 (an extract from this work occurs in his introduction to his commentary on Rabbah, Wilna, 18Y8) Hildesheimer, in the Supplement to the third Pruaram of the Rabbinical College
M
of Eteenxtaclt, 1869; Katzenellenbogen, Netibot 'Olam, 1st e'd., 1823, and 2d ed„ with annotations by M. and S. Straschun, 1858; Konigsberger, in Monatsbliitler fIXr Veraanaenheit unci Geyenwart, 1890-91, pp. 3-10, 90-94, and the Hebrew
Supplement, pp. 1-16; Reifmann, Menhib Dahar, j. sr.
BARAK. — Biblical
A
Data:
I860.
L. G.
the son of Abinoam mentioned in Judges iv. 6, v. 12, as the most important ally of Deborah in the strugwarrior;
Deborah summoned gle against the Canaanites. Barak, the son of Abinoam, from his home at Kedesh in Naphtali, and ordered him, in the name of Yuwn, thousand men to Mount Tabor. Here he was attacked, as Deborah had expected, by Sisera, to take ten
whose forces were put to flight, and the greater part It is noticeable of them slain, by Barak's army. that Barak appears throughout as secondary to, and dependent upon, Deborah. For example, when directed to receive Sisera at Mount Tabor, he agrees to obey on condition only that Deborah should go with him. The fact that the honor of the expedition is given to Deborah rather than to him is not to be regarded as derogatory to Barak. It is merely an-
other indication of his subordinate position
(see,
however, Moore, "Judges," p. 117). Barak joins in Accordthe song of triumph with Deborah (v. 1). ing to v. 15, Barak was probably a member of the It is interesting to note that the occurs also in Sabean (Dp~D) and Pal-
tribe of Issachar.
name " Barak
"
myrene (p-Q) inscriptions. " Barcas, " the surname of the famous Hamilcar, is the Punic equivalent; in Assyrian there are various names compounded with "birka," and the Babylonian Talmud has also a name "Baroka." j.
J-
jr.
In Rabbinical Literature
D. P-
According to the
" Rabbis, " Barak " is merely another name for Lapidoth," Deborah's husband (not her son, as Ambrosius says in "De Viduis," i. 8, 45). A third name given him was " Michael. " The reason for the three names Barak was an ignorant but pious is thus given: man; and not knowing how he could otherwise especially serve God, he accepted his wife's proposal to make candles to be offered by him at the sanctuary of Shiloh. Deborah, therefore, is designated as
"the wife of Lappidoth [Torchlights]."
God,
who
