[7] These interpretations were often regarded as corresponding to the real meaning of the scriptural texts; thus it was held that a correct elucidation of the Torah carried with it the proof of the halakha and the reason for its existence.
The older midrash, therefore, aims at an exact definition of the laws contained in the scriptures by an accurate interpretation of the text and a correct determination of the meaning of the various words.
[8] The statement that the determination of the calendar of feasts depends wholly on the decision of the Nasi and his council is derived from Leviticus 23:37, the defectively written otam (them) being read as attem (you) and the interpretation, "which you shall proclaim," being regarded as conforming to the original meaning of the phrase.
[11] According to Krochmal,[12] the ketib was due to the Soferim themselves, who desired that the interpretation given by the halakha might be contained in the text; for example, in the case of otam and attem noted above, they intentionally omitted the letter vav.
It treats the Bible according to certain general principles, which in the course of time became more and more amplified and developed (see Talmud); and its interpretations depart further and further from the simple meaning of the words.
The older halakha[13] represented by R. Jose the Galilean, bases its interpretation on a different division of the sentences in Exodus 13 than the one generally received; connecting the word ha-yom (= "this day", the first word of verse 13:4) with verse 13:3 and so making the passage read: "There shall no leavened bread be eaten this day."
The wide divergence between the simple exegesis of the older halakha and the artificiality of the younger is illustrated also by the difference in the method of explaining the Law, cited above, in regard to uncleanness.
[15] The younger halakha, despite the dot over the ה, reads rechokah and makes it refer to derekh ("road" or "way") even determining how far away one must be to be excluded from participation in the feast.
However, to find a ground for the halakha that those who are unclean through contact with other objects than a corpse may have no share in the Passover, it explains the repetition of the word ish in this passage (Leviticus 9 10) as intending to include all other cases of defilement.
Despite this difference in method, the midrashim of the older and of the younger halakha alike believed that they had sought only the true meaning of the scriptures.
It is to a law stated in this form—i.e., together with the biblical passage it derives from—that the name midrash applies, whereas one that, though ultimately based on the Bible, is cited independently as an established statute is called a halakha.
From the instances of midrashic baraitot in the Talmud that are not found in the extant midrashim, the loss of many of the latter class of works must be inferred.
These occur chiefly as expositions of such halakhot as were not based on scripture but which it was desired to connect with or support by a word in the Bible.