Talmudical Hermeneutics
Encyclopedia
Talmudical Hermeneutics (Hebrew: approximately, מידות שהתורה נדרשת בהן) is the science which defines the rules and methods for the investigation and exact determination of the meaning of the Scriptures, both legal and historical. Since the Halakha
, however, is regarded simply as an exposition and explanation of the Torah
, Talmud
hermeneutics includes also the rules by which the requirements of the oral law are derived from and established by the written law. These rules relate to:
It must be borne in mind, however, that neither Hillel, Ishmael, nor Eliezer ben Jose ha-Gelili sought to give a complete enumeration of the rules of interpretation current in his day, but that they omitted from their collections many rules which were then followed. For some reason they restricted themselves to a compilation of the principal methods of logical deduction, which they called "middot" (measures), although the other rules also were known by that term (comp. Sifre
, Num. 2 [ed. Friedmann, p. 2a]).
in Ayyelet ha-Shachar, the introduction to his commentary on the Sifra
, and have been reckoned at 613, to correspond with the 613 commandments. The antiquity of the rules can be determined only by the dates of the authorities who quote them; in general, they cannot safely be declared older than the tanna
to whom they are first ascribed. It is certain, however, that the seven middot of Hillel
and the 13 of R. Ishmael are earlier than the time of Hillel himself, who was the first to transmit them. At all events, he did not invent them, but merely collected them as current in his day, though he possibly amplified them.
The Talmud itself gives no information concerning the origin of the middot, although the Geonim
regarded them as Sinaitic (הלכה למשה מסיני, "Law given to Moses
at Mt. Sinai"; comp. R. Samson of Chinon
in his Sefer ha-Keritot).
The middot seem to have been laid down first as abstract rules by the teachers of Hillel
, though they were not immediately recognized by all as valid and binding. Different schools interpreted and modified them, restricting or expanding them, in various ways.
and R. Ishmael and their scholars especially contributed to the development or establishment of these rules. Akiba devoted his attention particularly to the grammatical and exegetical rules, while Ishmael developed the logical. The rules laid down by one school were frequently rejected by another because the principles which guided them in their respective formulations were essentially different.
is distinguished from the speech of men by the fact that in the former no word or sound is superfluous. He established two principles broadening the scope of the rule of his teacher Nahum of Gimzo
, who had declared that certain particles, like את, גם and או, were inclusive and certain others, such as אך, רק and מן, were exclusive. These two principles are:
Hence he interprets the following forms of expression as amplifications: an infinitive before a finite verb, e.g., הכרת תכרת (Sanh. 64b); the doubling of a word, e.g., איש איש (Yeb. 71a); and the repetition of a term by a synonym, e.g., ודבר ואמר (Yer. Soṭah
viii. 22b). Ishmael, on the contrary, lays down the principle, (דברה תורה כלשון בני אדם = "the Torah speaks in the language of men"; Sifre
, Num. 112). The Bible
may, therefore, have employed superfluous words and sounds; and forced values should not be assigned to them for the purpose of deducing new rules therefrom.
The same statement holds with regard to the repetition of an entire section. Ishmael is of the opinion that "the Torah at times repeats a whole section of the Law in order to give a new application to it" (כל פרשה שנאמרה במקום אחד וחזרו שנאה במקום אחר לא שנאה אלא בשביל דבר שנתחדש בה ; Sifre
, Num. 2, according to the reading of Elijah Wilna). It is not necessary, therefore, to draw a new inference from every repetition. Thus, for instance, in Num. v. 5-8 the Torah
repeats the section on אשם גזלות in Lev. v. 20-26 (vi. 1-7, A. V.) for the purpose of teaching the new ruling that in certain cases recompense for sin shall be made directly to the priests. Akiba
asserts, on the other hand (in Sifre
, l.c., according to the reading of Elijah Wilna), that "Everything that is said in a section so repeated must be interpreted" (= כל מה שנאמר בה צריך להדרש), and that new deductions may be drawn from it. According to this view, in Num. v. 5-8, for example, a new meaning must be sought in the repetition of the Law.
named R. Judah ben Ro'eẓ, who is not mentioned elsewhere, and of whom, consequently, nothing more is known (comp. Sanh. 4a). Ishmael, in opposition to Akiba, follows the principle יש אם למסורת, i.e., that the tradition regarding only the consonantal text is authoritative, and that rules may be deduced only from that text. A single example will serve to illustrate the difference between the methods of the two schools. In Lev. xxi. 11, in the law which forbids a priest to defile himself by touching a corpse, the word נפשת is written defectively. Since the traditional reading indicates the plural, "nafshot," Akiba draws the conclusion that a quarter-log of blood, the minimum quantity by which a priest may be rendered unclean through contact with a single corpse, also defiles him when it issues from two bodies. According to Ishmael, however, this minimum quantity defiles a priest only when it issues from a single corpse; for the word, according to the consonantal text, is to be read in the singular "nafshat" (comp. Sanh. 4a, b, Ḥul. 72a, and Tosafot
to both passages).
, Num. 131). According to Ishmael, on the contrary, nothing may be inferred from the position of the individual sections, since it is not at all certain that every single portion now stands in its proper place. Many a paragraph which forms, strictly speaking, the beginning of a book and should stand in that position, has been transposed to the middle. Ishmael explains the occurrence of a section in a place where it does not properly belong (ולמה נכתב כאן) by declaring that "there is no first or last in the Scriptures" (אלא מפני שאין מקדם ומאחר בתורה), not as due to any special reason (Mek., ed. I.H. Weiss, p. 48a; Eccl. R. i.; comp. Pes. 6b, where R. Pappa defines this principle in such a manner that it does not contradict Ishmael's rules concerning "Kelal uferat"). Eliezer b. Jose ha-Gelili expanded this rule in his baraita
(Baraita on the Thirty-two Rules
) and divided it into two parts (Nos. 31 and 32).
Nonetheless, this method is utilized in many instances, for example: Deuteronomy
22:11 speaks of the commandment forbidding the wearing of shaatnez, a specific mixture of wool
and linen
. The next verse discussed the directive to make tzitzit
, the fringes tied to four-cornered garments. The juxtaposition of these two verses is used to teach that the transgression of shaatnez is not violated when one wears a four cornered garment of linen bearing tzitzis of wool (the wool here is actually the thread(s) of tekhelet
, a blue-dyed woolen thread. While the white strings of the tzitzit could be of any material, the blue string must be wool, even when the subsequent garment would be a mixture of wool and linen.)
apply the axioms of both indiscriminately, although the hermeneutics of Akiba predominated. In this way all the principles cited above obtained general recognition.
of Talmud hermeneutics.
and of R. Ishmael is "kal va-chomer" , called also "din" (conclusion). This is the argument "a minori ad majus" or "a majori ad minus." In the Baraita of Eliezer b. Jose ha-Gelili this rule is divided into two (Nos. 5 and 6), since a distinction is made between a course of reasoning carried to its logical conclusion in the Holy Scriptures themselves ("kal wa-chomer meforash") and one merely suggested there ("kal va-chomer satum"). The completed argument is illustrated in ten examples given in Gen. R. xcii.
The full name of this rule should be "kal wa-Chomer, chomer we-kal" (simple and complex, complex and simple), since by it deductions are made from the simple to the complex or vice versa, according to the nature of the conclusion required. The major premise on which the argument is based is called "nadon," or, at a later period, "melammed" (that which teaches); the conclusion resulting from the argument is termed בא מן הדין, or, later, "lamed" (that which learns). The process of deduction in the kal wa-chomer is limited by the rule that the conclusion may contain nothing more than is found in the premise. This is the so-called "dayyo" law, which many teachers, however, ignored. It is formulated thus: דיו לבא מן הדין להיות כנדון ("The conclusion of an argument is satisfied when it is like the major premise").
There is a dispute regarding the thirteen principles: Either the kal va-chomer is unique among the thirteen rules in that it may be applied by anyone in any circumstance in which it logically applies and the remaining twelve rules may only be applied with a tradition of application descending from Moses
(or another authoritative legal board of the era) or all thirteen except a gezerah shava are open to all and only the latter is restricted in its application.
For example, one may make the following logical reasoning and support it using the basis of this rule: If, as a given, a parent will punish his or her child should the latter return home with scuffed shoes, surely the parent will punish his or her child should the latter return home with scuffed shoes, ripped pants and a torn shirt. The reasoning is based on pure logic: if the parent is so upset about one item of clothing, surely he or she will be at least that upset about the child's entire ensemble. A somewhat easier construct would be to assert "if a junior varsity basketball player can make a three-pointer
, surely an excellent professional basketball player could make the same three-pointer," but this might be attacked as a poor analogy because no one can make every shot.
However, one must be careful of falling into the trap of an illogical deduction, as explained above by "dayyo." An example of this would be as follows: If a parent will punish his or her child with a minor punishment should the latter return home with scuffed shoes, surely the parent will punish his or her child with a major punishment should the latter return home with scuffed shoes, ripped pants and a torn shirt. This is an illogical deduction; although it might be a fair speculation, it cannot be proven with logic. All that can be proven is at least the result of the lesser offense. This would be akin to asserting "if a junior varsity basketball player can make a three-pointer, surely an excellent professional basketball player could make half-court shot."
The discovery of a fallacy in the process of deduction is called "teshubah" (objection), or, in the terminology of the Amoraim, "pirka." The possibility of such an objection is never wholly excluded, hence the deduction of the kal va-chomer has no absolute certainty. The consequences of this are: (a) that the conclusions have, according to many teachers, no real value in criminal procedure, a view expressed in the axiom that the conclusion is insufficient to punish the violator of an inferred prohibition (אין עונשין מן הדין ; Sifre
, Num. 1); (b) that very often a passage is interpreted to mean something which may be inferred by means of a ḳal wa-ḥomer (מילתא דאתיא בק"ו טרח וכתב לה קרא ; Pes. 18b; Yoma
43a).
An example of a situation in which we specifically do not punish transgressions according to
kal va-chomer is as follows: Leviticus
18:21 speaks of the prohibition of worshipping Molech, which was a particular form of worship in which children were passed through fire (presumably until dead). Now, one would assume that if it were prohibited from passing some of one's children through the fire, surely it would be prohibited to pass all of one's children through the fire - a kal va-chomer. However, it is derived from the verse's use of the word "ומזרעך", lit. "and from your seed," that this prohibition is only when some of one's offspring from the whole of one's offspring is used in this worship, but when the whole of one's offspring is used, this is not punishable. This is explained with the reasoning that the intention of the Molech worship is to improve the health and well-being of one's remaining children, whereas complete sacrifice defeats the purported purpose of the service, rendering it unpunishable by lack of intent to perform it properly.
and of R. Ishmael, and the seventh of Eliezer b. Jose ha-Gelili. This may be described as argument by analogy
, which infers from the similarity of two cases that the legal decision given for the one holds good for the other also. The term "gezerah shavah" originally included arguments based on analogies either in word or in fact. Before long, however, the latter class was designated as "hekkesh," while the phrase "gezerah shavah" was limited to analogy in the case of two different Biblical laws containing a word common to both. The gezerah shavah was originally restricted to a δὶς λεγόμενον, i.e., a word occurring only in the two passages offering the analogy. Since such a word is found nowhere else, there is no reason to assume that it bears different meanings in the two passages. The gezerah shavah consequently attaches to the word in the one passage the entire sequence of ideas which it bears in the other. Such a gezerah shavah is purely lexicographical, as seeking to determine the exact signification of a word by comparison with another passage in which the full meaning of such word is clear. The rule thus demonstrates itself.
An example will illustrate this more clearly. The phrase מלק את ראשו ("to wring off the head") occurs only twice in the Pentateuch, namely, in Lev. i. 15 and ib. v. 8. In the latter passage, however, the meaning of the phrase is more closely defined by ממול ערפו ("from the neck"). The Sifra
(ed. I.H. Weiss, p. 9a) concludes, therefore, that the nearer definition, "from the neck," in the second passage, is part of the concept of the word מלק, and, consequently, that in the former passage, also, מלק means "to wring the head from the neck." At a later period, however, the gezerah shavah emerged from these narrow bounds and inferred the identity of legal requirements from the identity of their terminology, even when such terminology occurred in many passages besides the two which formed the analogy. Thereby the gezerah shavah lost its inherent power of demonstration; for it is wholly unreasonable to attribute to a word a meaning which happens to be associated with it in a single passage, when various other passages connect ideas entirely different with the same word. Since, moreover, each individual teacher might choose which two expressions he would select for a gezerah shavah, contradictory conclusions might be drawn, which would each have the same claim to validity, since both were obtained by a gezerah shavah. Consequently, in order to be binding, a gezerah shavah was obliged to conform to two requirements which, on the one hand, greatly restricted its application, and, on the other, gave legal decisions thus obtained the value of those deduced from a superfluous word in the Holy Scriptures. These conditions are:
. According to the former, who follows his teacher R. Neḥunya b. ha-Ḳanah, the particular is only an elucidation of the preceding general expression, so that the latter includes only what is contained in the particular (כלל ופרט אין בכלל אלא מה שבפרט). But if still another general follows the particular, the two general expressions are defined by the intermediate particular, so that the law applies only to what is like the particular (כלל ופרט וכלל אי אתה מרבה אלא כעין הפרט). Akiba, on the contrary, applies the rule of increase and decrease (רבוי ומיעוט) which had been taught him by his teacher Nahum of Gimzo
. According to this principle, the general followed by a particular subsumes everything which is like the particular (Sanh. 45b, 46a). If, however, another general term follows the particular, the former subsumes also what is not similar to the latter. The two general terms are decreased in only one respect by the intermediate particular (רבוי ומיעוט ורבוי ריבה הכל ומאי מיעט דבר אחר ; Shebu. 26a; comp. also Rashi
on Sanh. l.c.). [ed: this quote may be in error]
The difference between kelal u-perat u-kelal (כלל ופרט וכלל) and ribbui u-miyut u-ribbui (רבוי ומיעוט ורבוי) is exemplified in the following example: Exodus 25:31 states ועשית מנרת זהב טהור מקשה תיעשה המנורה, "You shall make a Menorah of pure gold, hammered out shall the Menorah be made." The repetitive fashion of the statement can be explained by the kelal u-perat u-kelal or the ribbui u-miyut u-ribbui.
Whichever method of deduction is employed, the word ועשית ("You shall make") is an objective generalization, the words מנרת זהב ("pure gold
") are an objective specification and the word תיעשה (shall be made") is again an objective generalization. The rule of kelal u-perat u-kelal works to teach that anything similar to the specification is deemed appropriate, while the rule of ribbui u-miyut u-ribbui is more inclusive, allowing everything except the thing most dissimilar to the specification.
Thus, Rashi's
commentary in Rosh Hashanah
24b asserts that, according to the former method of learning this verse, the Menorah could, when necessary, be constructed of any metal (deemed in the same category of and thus similar to gold), whereas use of the latter method of learning would allow the Menorah to be constructed of anything but clay
(deemed the material most dissimilar to gold). This argument arose because the gemarah made reference to a wooden Menorah overlaid with tin
that was constructed in the times of the Chashmunaim
and used in the Temple service.
, and which reads thus: שני כתובים המכחישים זה את זה, עד שיבוא הכתוב השלישי ויכריע ביניהם ("If two passages contradict each other, this contradiction must be reconciled by comparison with a third passage"). The method of solution of such opposing statements by the help of a third passage is a point of divergency between Ishmael and Akiba
. According to the latter, the third sentence decides in favor of one of the two contradictory statements (Mek., ed. I.H. Weiss, 6a); according to the former, it modifies the interpretation of both. With regard to the meaning of words which are pointed in the text, Simeon b. Eleazar laid down the rule that if the pointed part of the word (נקודה) is equal to the unpointed part (כתב) in length, the word must not be interpreted at all; but if one part is longer than the other, such part must be interpreted (Gen. R. lxxviii.). Concerning the interpretation of words by a change of letters or vowels the rule is: אל תקרא ("Do not read so, but so"). Under this rule the integrity of the text itself is not assailed, the changes made being only for the purpose of explanation.
To support a halakic decision, and more especially to find a point of departure in the aggadah
, the traditional reading of a word is altered by transposition of its consonants or by substitution of others which are related to them, or the consonant-group is retained with alteration of its vowels, the last method being the most frequent. A halakic example of this form of hermeneutics is the interpretation of the word "kapot" (bough; Leviticus
23:40) as though it were "kaput" (bound; Sifra
, ed. Weiss, p. 102d; Suk. 32a). It is noteworthy, moreover, that only the Tannaim
derived new halakot with the aid of these rules, while the Amoraim employed them only in advancing haggadic explanations or in establishing the old halakot of the Tannaim.
Halakha
Halakha — also transliterated Halocho , or Halacha — is the collective body of Jewish law, including biblical law and later talmudic and rabbinic law, as well as customs and traditions.Judaism classically draws no distinction in its laws between religious and ostensibly non-religious life; Jewish...
, however, is regarded simply as an exposition and explanation of the Torah
Torah
Torah- A scroll containing the first five books of the BibleThe Torah , is name given by Jews to the first five books of the bible—Genesis , Exodus , Leviticus , Numbers and Deuteronomy Torah- A scroll containing the first five books of the BibleThe Torah , is name given by Jews to the first five...
, Talmud
Talmud
The Talmud is a central text of mainstream Judaism. It takes the form of a record of rabbinic discussions pertaining to Jewish law, ethics, philosophy, customs and history....
hermeneutics includes also the rules by which the requirements of the oral law are derived from and established by the written law. These rules relate to:
- grammar and exegesis
- the interpretation of certain words and letters and apparently superfluous and/or missing words or letters, and prefixes and suffixes
- the interpretation of those letters which, in certain words, are provided with points
- the interpretation of the letters in a word according to their numerical value (see GematriaGematriaGematria or gimatria is a system of assigning numerical value to a word or phrase, in the belief that words or phrases with identical numerical values bear some relation to each other, or bear some relation to the number itself as it may apply to a person's age, the calendar year, or the like...
) - the interpretation of a word by dividing it into two or more words (see NotarikonNotarikonNotarikon is a method of deriving a word, akin to the creation of an acronym, by using each of its initial or final letters to stand for another word, forming a sentence or idea out of the words. Another variation entails using the first and last letters, or the two middle letters of a word,...
) - the interpretation of a word according to its consonantal form or according to its vocalization
- the interpretation of a word by transposing its letters or by changing its vowels
- the logical deduction of a halakah from a Scriptural text or from another law
Classes of rules
Compilations of such hermeneutic rules were made in the earliest times. The tannaitic tradition recognizes three such collections, namely:- the 7 Rules of HillelHillel the ElderHillel was a famous Jewish religious leader, one of the most important figures in Jewish history. He is associated with the development of the Mishnah and the Talmud...
(baraitaBaraitaBaraita designates a tradition in the Jewish oral law not incorporated in the Mishnah. "Baraita" thus refers to teachings "outside" of the six orders of the Mishnah...
at the beginning of SifraSifraSifra is the Halakic midrash to Leviticus. It is frequently quoted in the Talmud, and the study of it followed that of the Mishnah, as appears from Tanḥuma, quoted in Or Zarua, i. 7b. Like Leviticus itself, the midrash is occasionally called "Torat Kohanim" , and in two passages also "Sifra debe...
; Ab. R. N. xxxvii.) - the 13 Rules of R. Ishmael (baraita at the beginning of Sifra; this collection is merely an amplification of that of Hillel)
- the 32 Rules of R. Eliezer b. Jose ha-Gelili. These last-mentioned rules are contained in an independent baraita (Baraita on the Thirty-two RulesBaraita on the Thirty-two RulesThe Baraita on the Thirty-two Rules or Baraita of R. Eliezer ben Jose ha-Gelili is a baraita giving 32 hermeneutic rules for interpreting the Bible. It no longer exists, except in references by later authorities. Abul-Walid ibn Janaḥ is the oldest authority who drew upon this Baraita, but he did...
) which has been incorporated and preserved only in later works. They are intended for haggadic interpretation, but many of them are valid for the Halakah as well, coinciding with the rules of Hillel and Ishmael.
It must be borne in mind, however, that neither Hillel, Ishmael, nor Eliezer ben Jose ha-Gelili sought to give a complete enumeration of the rules of interpretation current in his day, but that they omitted from their collections many rules which were then followed. For some reason they restricted themselves to a compilation of the principal methods of logical deduction, which they called "middot" (measures), although the other rules also were known by that term (comp. Sifre
Sifre
Sifre refers to either of two works of Midrash halakhah, or classical Jewish legal Biblical exegesis, based on the biblical books of Bamidbar and Devarim .- The Talmudic-Era Sifre :The title "Sifre debe Rab" is used by R. Hananeel on Sheb. 37b, Alfasi on Pes...
, Num. 2 [ed. Friedmann, p. 2a]).
Dates of the rules
All the hermeneutic rules scattered through the Talmudim and Midrashim have been collected by MalbimMalbim
Meïr Leibush ben Jehiel Michel Weiser , better known by the acronym Malbim , was a rabbi, Hebrew grammar master, and Bible commentator....
in Ayyelet ha-Shachar, the introduction to his commentary on the Sifra
Sifra
Sifra is the Halakic midrash to Leviticus. It is frequently quoted in the Talmud, and the study of it followed that of the Mishnah, as appears from Tanḥuma, quoted in Or Zarua, i. 7b. Like Leviticus itself, the midrash is occasionally called "Torat Kohanim" , and in two passages also "Sifra debe...
, and have been reckoned at 613, to correspond with the 613 commandments. The antiquity of the rules can be determined only by the dates of the authorities who quote them; in general, they cannot safely be declared older than the tanna
Tannaim
The Tannaim were the Rabbinic sages whose views are recorded in the Mishnah, from approximately 70-200 CE. The period of the Tannaim, also referred to as the Mishnaic period, lasted about 130 years...
to whom they are first ascribed. It is certain, however, that the seven middot of Hillel
Hillel the Elder
Hillel was a famous Jewish religious leader, one of the most important figures in Jewish history. He is associated with the development of the Mishnah and the Talmud...
and the 13 of R. Ishmael are earlier than the time of Hillel himself, who was the first to transmit them. At all events, he did not invent them, but merely collected them as current in his day, though he possibly amplified them.
The Talmud itself gives no information concerning the origin of the middot, although the Geonim
Geonim
Geonim were the presidents of the two great Babylonian, Talmudic Academies of Sura and Pumbedita, in the Abbasid Caliphate, and were the generally accepted spiritual leaders of the Jewish community world wide in the early medieval era, in contrast to the Resh Galuta who wielded secular authority...
regarded them as Sinaitic (הלכה למשה מסיני, "Law given to Moses
Moses
Moses was, according to the Hebrew Bible and Qur'an, a religious leader, lawgiver and prophet, to whom the authorship of the Torah is traditionally attributed...
at Mt. Sinai"; comp. R. Samson of Chinon
Samson of Chinon
Samson ben Isaac of Chinon was a French Talmudist who lived at Chinon. In Talmudic literature he is generally called after his native place, Chinon , and sometimes by the abbreviation MaHaRShaḲ...
in his Sefer ha-Keritot).
The middot seem to have been laid down first as abstract rules by the teachers of Hillel
Hillel the Elder
Hillel was a famous Jewish religious leader, one of the most important figures in Jewish history. He is associated with the development of the Mishnah and the Talmud...
, though they were not immediately recognized by all as valid and binding. Different schools interpreted and modified them, restricting or expanding them, in various ways.
Rules of Akiba and Ishmael
AkibaAkiba
Akiba may refer to:*Akiba-kei, a Japanese slang term*Tadatoshi Akiba , mayor of Hiroshima* Akiba, a subgenus of protozoa in the genus LeucocytozoonIn entertainment:* Akiba , a 2006 Japanese film...
and R. Ishmael and their scholars especially contributed to the development or establishment of these rules. Akiba devoted his attention particularly to the grammatical and exegetical rules, while Ishmael developed the logical. The rules laid down by one school were frequently rejected by another because the principles which guided them in their respective formulations were essentially different.
Superfluity in the text
According to Akiba, the divine language of the TorahTorah
Torah- A scroll containing the first five books of the BibleThe Torah , is name given by Jews to the first five books of the bible—Genesis , Exodus , Leviticus , Numbers and Deuteronomy Torah- A scroll containing the first five books of the BibleThe Torah , is name given by Jews to the first five...
is distinguished from the speech of men by the fact that in the former no word or sound is superfluous. He established two principles broadening the scope of the rule of his teacher Nahum of Gimzo
Nahum of Gimzo
Nachum of Gamzu was a Tanna of the 2nd generation . In the Talmud he is called "Ish Gam Zu" , and this name is explained as referring to Nahum's motto: on every occasion, no matter how unpleasant the circumstance, he exclaimed "gam zu le-tovah"...
, who had declared that certain particles, like את, גם and או, were inclusive and certain others, such as אך, רק and מן, were exclusive. These two principles are:
- אין רבוי אחר רבוי אלא למעט (= "one inclusion added to another is equivalent to an exclusion"; SifraSifraSifra is the Halakic midrash to Leviticus. It is frequently quoted in the Talmud, and the study of it followed that of the Mishnah, as appears from Tanḥuma, quoted in Or Zarua, i. 7b. Like Leviticus itself, the midrash is occasionally called "Torat Kohanim" , and in two passages also "Sifra debe...
, Ẓaw, Pereḳ, 11 [ed. I.H. Weiss, p. 34d]) - לשונות רבויין הן (= "words are amplifications"; Yer. Shab. xix. 17a)
Hence he interprets the following forms of expression as amplifications: an infinitive before a finite verb, e.g., הכרת תכרת (Sanh. 64b); the doubling of a word, e.g., איש איש (Yeb. 71a); and the repetition of a term by a synonym, e.g., ודבר ואמר (Yer. Soṭah
Sotah
Sotah deals with the ritual of the Sotah - the woman suspected of adultery as described and prescribed in the Book of Numbers in...
viii. 22b). Ishmael, on the contrary, lays down the principle, (דברה תורה כלשון בני אדם = "the Torah speaks in the language of men"; Sifre
Sifre
Sifre refers to either of two works of Midrash halakhah, or classical Jewish legal Biblical exegesis, based on the biblical books of Bamidbar and Devarim .- The Talmudic-Era Sifre :The title "Sifre debe Rab" is used by R. Hananeel on Sheb. 37b, Alfasi on Pes...
, Num. 112). The Bible
Bible
The Bible refers to any one of the collections of the primary religious texts of Judaism and Christianity. There is no common version of the Bible, as the individual books , their contents and their order vary among denominations...
may, therefore, have employed superfluous words and sounds; and forced values should not be assigned to them for the purpose of deducing new rules therefrom.
The same statement holds with regard to the repetition of an entire section. Ishmael is of the opinion that "the Torah at times repeats a whole section of the Law in order to give a new application to it" (כל פרשה שנאמרה במקום אחד וחזרו שנאה במקום אחר לא שנאה אלא בשביל דבר שנתחדש בה ; Sifre
Sifre
Sifre refers to either of two works of Midrash halakhah, or classical Jewish legal Biblical exegesis, based on the biblical books of Bamidbar and Devarim .- The Talmudic-Era Sifre :The title "Sifre debe Rab" is used by R. Hananeel on Sheb. 37b, Alfasi on Pes...
, Num. 2, according to the reading of Elijah Wilna). It is not necessary, therefore, to draw a new inference from every repetition. Thus, for instance, in Num. v. 5-8 the Torah
Torah
Torah- A scroll containing the first five books of the BibleThe Torah , is name given by Jews to the first five books of the bible—Genesis , Exodus , Leviticus , Numbers and Deuteronomy Torah- A scroll containing the first five books of the BibleThe Torah , is name given by Jews to the first five...
repeats the section on אשם גזלות in Lev. v. 20-26 (vi. 1-7, A. V.) for the purpose of teaching the new ruling that in certain cases recompense for sin shall be made directly to the priests. Akiba
Akiba
Akiba may refer to:*Akiba-kei, a Japanese slang term*Tadatoshi Akiba , mayor of Hiroshima* Akiba, a subgenus of protozoa in the genus LeucocytozoonIn entertainment:* Akiba , a 2006 Japanese film...
asserts, on the other hand (in Sifre
Sifre
Sifre refers to either of two works of Midrash halakhah, or classical Jewish legal Biblical exegesis, based on the biblical books of Bamidbar and Devarim .- The Talmudic-Era Sifre :The title "Sifre debe Rab" is used by R. Hananeel on Sheb. 37b, Alfasi on Pes...
, l.c., according to the reading of Elijah Wilna), that "Everything that is said in a section so repeated must be interpreted" (= כל מה שנאמר בה צריך להדרש), and that new deductions may be drawn from it. According to this view, in Num. v. 5-8, for example, a new meaning must be sought in the repetition of the Law.
Vocalization of words
According to Akiba, the traditional vocalization in the Bible of a word which may be read in various ways is well founded (יש אם למקרא); and he deduces many rules from the meanings which such words have according to traditional pointing. This rule had been formulated before Akiba by a tannaTannaim
The Tannaim were the Rabbinic sages whose views are recorded in the Mishnah, from approximately 70-200 CE. The period of the Tannaim, also referred to as the Mishnaic period, lasted about 130 years...
named R. Judah ben Ro'eẓ, who is not mentioned elsewhere, and of whom, consequently, nothing more is known (comp. Sanh. 4a). Ishmael, in opposition to Akiba, follows the principle יש אם למסורת, i.e., that the tradition regarding only the consonantal text is authoritative, and that rules may be deduced only from that text. A single example will serve to illustrate the difference between the methods of the two schools. In Lev. xxi. 11, in the law which forbids a priest to defile himself by touching a corpse, the word נפשת is written defectively. Since the traditional reading indicates the plural, "nafshot," Akiba draws the conclusion that a quarter-log of blood, the minimum quantity by which a priest may be rendered unclean through contact with a single corpse, also defiles him when it issues from two bodies. According to Ishmael, however, this minimum quantity defiles a priest only when it issues from a single corpse; for the word, according to the consonantal text, is to be read in the singular "nafshat" (comp. Sanh. 4a, b, Ḥul. 72a, and Tosafot
Tosafot
The Tosafot or Tosafos are medieval commentaries on the Talmud. They take the form of critical and explanatory glosses, printed, in almost all Talmud editions, on the outer margin and opposite Rashi's notes...
to both passages).
Juxtaposition of sections
According to Akiba, laws may be deduced from the juxtaposition of two legal sections, since "every passage which stands close to another must be explained and interpreted with reference to its neighbor" (כל פרשה שהיא סמוכה לחבירתה למדה הימנה; SifreSifre
Sifre refers to either of two works of Midrash halakhah, or classical Jewish legal Biblical exegesis, based on the biblical books of Bamidbar and Devarim .- The Talmudic-Era Sifre :The title "Sifre debe Rab" is used by R. Hananeel on Sheb. 37b, Alfasi on Pes...
, Num. 131). According to Ishmael, on the contrary, nothing may be inferred from the position of the individual sections, since it is not at all certain that every single portion now stands in its proper place. Many a paragraph which forms, strictly speaking, the beginning of a book and should stand in that position, has been transposed to the middle. Ishmael explains the occurrence of a section in a place where it does not properly belong (ולמה נכתב כאן) by declaring that "there is no first or last in the Scriptures" (אלא מפני שאין מקדם ומאחר בתורה), not as due to any special reason (Mek., ed. I.H. Weiss, p. 48a; Eccl. R. i.; comp. Pes. 6b, where R. Pappa defines this principle in such a manner that it does not contradict Ishmael's rules concerning "Kelal uferat"). Eliezer b. Jose ha-Gelili expanded this rule in his baraita
Baraita
Baraita designates a tradition in the Jewish oral law not incorporated in the Mishnah. "Baraita" thus refers to teachings "outside" of the six orders of the Mishnah...
(Baraita on the Thirty-two Rules
Baraita on the Thirty-two Rules
The Baraita on the Thirty-two Rules or Baraita of R. Eliezer ben Jose ha-Gelili is a baraita giving 32 hermeneutic rules for interpreting the Bible. It no longer exists, except in references by later authorities. Abul-Walid ibn Janaḥ is the oldest authority who drew upon this Baraita, but he did...
) and divided it into two parts (Nos. 31 and 32).
Nonetheless, this method is utilized in many instances, for example: Deuteronomy
Deuteronomy
The Book of Deuteronomy is the fifth book of the Hebrew Bible, and of the Jewish Torah/Pentateuch...
22:11 speaks of the commandment forbidding the wearing of shaatnez, a specific mixture of wool
Wool
Wool is the textile fiber obtained from sheep and certain other animals, including cashmere from goats, mohair from goats, qiviut from muskoxen, vicuña, alpaca, camel from animals in the camel family, and angora from rabbits....
and linen
Linen
Linen is a textile made from the fibers of the flax plant, Linum usitatissimum. Linen is labor-intensive to manufacture, but when it is made into garments, it is valued for its exceptional coolness and freshness in hot weather....
. The next verse discussed the directive to make tzitzit
Tzitzit
The Hebrew noun tzitzit is the name for specially knotted ritual fringes worn by observant Jews. Tzitzit are attached to the four corners of the tallit and tallit katan.-Etymology:The word may derive from the semitic root N-TZ-H...
, the fringes tied to four-cornered garments. The juxtaposition of these two verses is used to teach that the transgression of shaatnez is not violated when one wears a four cornered garment of linen bearing tzitzis of wool (the wool here is actually the thread(s) of tekhelet
Tekhelet
Tekhelet, , Tekheleth, Techelet or Techeiles is a blue dye mentioned 50 times in the Hebrew Bible and translated by the Septuagint as hyakinthinos . Its uses include the clothing of the High Priest, the tapestries in the Tabernacle, and the tassels to be affixed to the corners of one's garments...
, a blue-dyed woolen thread. While the white strings of the tzitzit could be of any material, the blue string must be wool, even when the subsequent garment would be a mixture of wool and linen.)
Fusion of methodologies
The opposition between the schools of Ishmael and Akiba lessened gradually, and finally vanished altogether, so that the later tannaimTannaim
The Tannaim were the Rabbinic sages whose views are recorded in the Mishnah, from approximately 70-200 CE. The period of the Tannaim, also referred to as the Mishnaic period, lasted about 130 years...
apply the axioms of both indiscriminately, although the hermeneutics of Akiba predominated. In this way all the principles cited above obtained general recognition.
Detailed rules
A more detailed discussion of the seven rules of Hillel, and of the thirteen of Ishmael, may now be given, together with certain other important canonsBiblical canon
A biblical canon, or canon of scripture, is a list of books considered to be authoritative as scripture by a particular religious community. The term itself was first coined by Christians, but the idea is found in Jewish sources. The internal wording of the text can also be specified, for example...
of Talmud hermeneutics.
Kal va-Chomer (קל וחומר)
The first rule of HillelHillel the Elder
Hillel was a famous Jewish religious leader, one of the most important figures in Jewish history. He is associated with the development of the Mishnah and the Talmud...
and of R. Ishmael is "kal va-chomer" , called also "din" (conclusion). This is the argument "a minori ad majus" or "a majori ad minus." In the Baraita of Eliezer b. Jose ha-Gelili this rule is divided into two (Nos. 5 and 6), since a distinction is made between a course of reasoning carried to its logical conclusion in the Holy Scriptures themselves ("kal wa-chomer meforash") and one merely suggested there ("kal va-chomer satum"). The completed argument is illustrated in ten examples given in Gen. R. xcii.
The full name of this rule should be "kal wa-Chomer, chomer we-kal" (simple and complex, complex and simple), since by it deductions are made from the simple to the complex or vice versa, according to the nature of the conclusion required. The major premise on which the argument is based is called "nadon," or, at a later period, "melammed" (that which teaches); the conclusion resulting from the argument is termed בא מן הדין, or, later, "lamed" (that which learns). The process of deduction in the kal wa-chomer is limited by the rule that the conclusion may contain nothing more than is found in the premise. This is the so-called "dayyo" law, which many teachers, however, ignored. It is formulated thus: דיו לבא מן הדין להיות כנדון ("The conclusion of an argument is satisfied when it is like the major premise").
There is a dispute regarding the thirteen principles: Either the kal va-chomer is unique among the thirteen rules in that it may be applied by anyone in any circumstance in which it logically applies and the remaining twelve rules may only be applied with a tradition of application descending from Moses
Moses
Moses was, according to the Hebrew Bible and Qur'an, a religious leader, lawgiver and prophet, to whom the authorship of the Torah is traditionally attributed...
(or another authoritative legal board of the era) or all thirteen except a gezerah shava are open to all and only the latter is restricted in its application.
For example, one may make the following logical reasoning and support it using the basis of this rule: If, as a given, a parent will punish his or her child should the latter return home with scuffed shoes, surely the parent will punish his or her child should the latter return home with scuffed shoes, ripped pants and a torn shirt. The reasoning is based on pure logic: if the parent is so upset about one item of clothing, surely he or she will be at least that upset about the child's entire ensemble. A somewhat easier construct would be to assert "if a junior varsity basketball player can make a three-pointer
Three-point field goal
A three-point field goal is a field goal in a basketball game, made from beyond the three-point line, a designated arc radiating from the basket...
, surely an excellent professional basketball player could make the same three-pointer," but this might be attacked as a poor analogy because no one can make every shot.
However, one must be careful of falling into the trap of an illogical deduction, as explained above by "dayyo." An example of this would be as follows: If a parent will punish his or her child with a minor punishment should the latter return home with scuffed shoes, surely the parent will punish his or her child with a major punishment should the latter return home with scuffed shoes, ripped pants and a torn shirt. This is an illogical deduction; although it might be a fair speculation, it cannot be proven with logic. All that can be proven is at least the result of the lesser offense. This would be akin to asserting "if a junior varsity basketball player can make a three-pointer, surely an excellent professional basketball player could make half-court shot."
The discovery of a fallacy in the process of deduction is called "teshubah" (objection), or, in the terminology of the Amoraim, "pirka." The possibility of such an objection is never wholly excluded, hence the deduction of the kal va-chomer has no absolute certainty. The consequences of this are: (a) that the conclusions have, according to many teachers, no real value in criminal procedure, a view expressed in the axiom that the conclusion is insufficient to punish the violator of an inferred prohibition (אין עונשין מן הדין ; Sifre
Sifre
Sifre refers to either of two works of Midrash halakhah, or classical Jewish legal Biblical exegesis, based on the biblical books of Bamidbar and Devarim .- The Talmudic-Era Sifre :The title "Sifre debe Rab" is used by R. Hananeel on Sheb. 37b, Alfasi on Pes...
, Num. 1); (b) that very often a passage is interpreted to mean something which may be inferred by means of a ḳal wa-ḥomer (מילתא דאתיא בק"ו טרח וכתב לה קרא ; Pes. 18b; Yoma
Yoma
Yoma is the fifth tractate of Seder Moed of the Mishnah and of the Talmud. It is concerned mainly with the laws of the Jewish holiday Yom Kippur, on which Jews atone for their sins from the previous year...
43a).
An example of a situation in which we specifically do not punish transgressions according to
kal va-chomer is as follows: Leviticus
Leviticus
The Book of Leviticus is the third book of the Hebrew Bible, and the third of five books of the Torah ....
18:21 speaks of the prohibition of worshipping Molech, which was a particular form of worship in which children were passed through fire (presumably until dead). Now, one would assume that if it were prohibited from passing some of one's children through the fire, surely it would be prohibited to pass all of one's children through the fire - a kal va-chomer. However, it is derived from the verse's use of the word "ומזרעך", lit. "and from your seed," that this prohibition is only when some of one's offspring from the whole of one's offspring is used in this worship, but when the whole of one's offspring is used, this is not punishable. This is explained with the reasoning that the intention of the Molech worship is to improve the health and well-being of one's remaining children, whereas complete sacrifice defeats the purported purpose of the service, rendering it unpunishable by lack of intent to perform it properly.
Gezerah Shavah (גזירה שוה)
The gezerah shavah ("Similar laws, similar verdicts") is the second rule of HillelHillel the Elder
Hillel was a famous Jewish religious leader, one of the most important figures in Jewish history. He is associated with the development of the Mishnah and the Talmud...
and of R. Ishmael, and the seventh of Eliezer b. Jose ha-Gelili. This may be described as argument by analogy
Analogy
Analogy is a cognitive process of transferring information or meaning from a particular subject to another particular subject , and a linguistic expression corresponding to such a process...
, which infers from the similarity of two cases that the legal decision given for the one holds good for the other also. The term "gezerah shavah" originally included arguments based on analogies either in word or in fact. Before long, however, the latter class was designated as "hekkesh," while the phrase "gezerah shavah" was limited to analogy in the case of two different Biblical laws containing a word common to both. The gezerah shavah was originally restricted to a δὶς λεγόμενον, i.e., a word occurring only in the two passages offering the analogy. Since such a word is found nowhere else, there is no reason to assume that it bears different meanings in the two passages. The gezerah shavah consequently attaches to the word in the one passage the entire sequence of ideas which it bears in the other. Such a gezerah shavah is purely lexicographical, as seeking to determine the exact signification of a word by comparison with another passage in which the full meaning of such word is clear. The rule thus demonstrates itself.
An example will illustrate this more clearly. The phrase מלק את ראשו ("to wring off the head") occurs only twice in the Pentateuch, namely, in Lev. i. 15 and ib. v. 8. In the latter passage, however, the meaning of the phrase is more closely defined by ממול ערפו ("from the neck"). The Sifra
Sifra
Sifra is the Halakic midrash to Leviticus. It is frequently quoted in the Talmud, and the study of it followed that of the Mishnah, as appears from Tanḥuma, quoted in Or Zarua, i. 7b. Like Leviticus itself, the midrash is occasionally called "Torat Kohanim" , and in two passages also "Sifra debe...
(ed. I.H. Weiss, p. 9a) concludes, therefore, that the nearer definition, "from the neck," in the second passage, is part of the concept of the word מלק, and, consequently, that in the former passage, also, מלק means "to wring the head from the neck." At a later period, however, the gezerah shavah emerged from these narrow bounds and inferred the identity of legal requirements from the identity of their terminology, even when such terminology occurred in many passages besides the two which formed the analogy. Thereby the gezerah shavah lost its inherent power of demonstration; for it is wholly unreasonable to attribute to a word a meaning which happens to be associated with it in a single passage, when various other passages connect ideas entirely different with the same word. Since, moreover, each individual teacher might choose which two expressions he would select for a gezerah shavah, contradictory conclusions might be drawn, which would each have the same claim to validity, since both were obtained by a gezerah shavah. Consequently, in order to be binding, a gezerah shavah was obliged to conform to two requirements which, on the one hand, greatly restricted its application, and, on the other, gave legal decisions thus obtained the value of those deduced from a superfluous word in the Holy Scriptures. These conditions are:
- אין אדם דן גזירה שוה מעצמו ("No one may draw a conclusion from analogy upon his own authority"; Pes. 66a; NiddahNiddahNiddah is a Hebrew term describing a woman during menstruation, or a woman who has menstruated and not yet completed the associated requirement of immersion in a mikveh ....
19b). This rule, however, is not to be regarded as implying that every gezerah shavah must have been handed down from Mt. Sinai, as RashiRashiShlomo Yitzhaki , or in Latin Salomon Isaacides, and today generally known by the acronym Rashi , was a medieval French rabbi famed as the author of a comprehensive commentary on the Talmud, as well as a comprehensive commentary on the Tanakh...
(on the various passages) and many expositors who followed him explained it, but that the use of this method of hermeneutics is to be permitted only to an entire board or council, and is to be employed only when its results agree with the traditional halakah, which thereby acquires the importance of a law implied in the Scriptures. In YerushalmiYerushalmiYerushalmi may refer to:* Jerusalem Talmud * Meurav Yerushalmi * Targum Yerushalmi* Targum Pseudo-Jonathan * Jerusalemite- Family name :* Aharon Yerushalmi...
this rule reads: אדם דן גזירה שוה לקיים תלמודו ואין אדם דן גזירה שוה לבטל תלמודו ("From a gezerah shavah conclusions may be deduced which support tradition, but not such as are opposed to tradition"; comp. MaimonidesMaimonidesMoses ben-Maimon, called Maimonides and also known as Mūsā ibn Maymūn in Arabic, or Rambam , was a preeminent medieval Jewish philosopher and one of the greatest Torah scholars and physicians of the Middle Ages...
in the introduction to his Mishneh Torah).
- The words of the text which form the basis of the deduction from analogy must be free, i.e., they must be superfluous and non-essential, or they may not be used (מופנה להקיש ולדין הימנו גזירה שוה). This limitation of the gezerah shavah, however, to superfluous words is not generally recognized. AkibaAkibaAkiba may refer to:*Akiba-kei, a Japanese slang term*Tadatoshi Akiba , mayor of Hiroshima* Akiba, a subgenus of protozoa in the genus LeucocytozoonIn entertainment:* Akiba , a 2006 Japanese film...
considers the gezerah shavah valid when neither of the two words is superfluous (אינו מופנה כלל). According to R. Ishmael, it is sufficient if the analogy is free on one side (מופנה מצד אחד), i.e., if one of the two words forming the basis of the analogy is pleonastic. R. Eliezer alone requires both words to be superfluous (מופנה משני צדדים; comp. D. Hoffmann, Zur Einleitung in die Halachischen Midraschim, p. 6).
Binyan ab mi-katuv echad (בנין אב מכתוב אחד)
In "binyan ab mi-katub echad" ("A standard from a passage of Scripture") a certain passage serves as a basis for the interpretation of many others, so that the decision given in the case of one is valid for all the rest.Binyan ab mi-shene ketubim (בנין אב משני כתובים)
By this rule of "binyan ab mi-shene ketubim" ("A standard from two passages of Scripture") a decision in two laws having a characteristic in common (הצד השוה) is applied to many other laws which have this same characteristic. R. Ishmael unites rules 2 and 4 in his third rule, while the same combination forms the eighth rule of Eliezer b. Jose ha-Gelili.Kelal u-perat and perat u-kelal (כלל ופרט ופרט וכלל)
The rules of "Kelal u-perat" and "perat u-kelal" ("General and particular, particular and general") is a limitation of the general by the particular and vice versa. According to R. Ishmael, this principle has eight special applications, and thus includes eight separate rules in his scheme (Nos. 4-11). This method of limitation is one of the main points of difference between Ishmael and AkibaAkiba
Akiba may refer to:*Akiba-kei, a Japanese slang term*Tadatoshi Akiba , mayor of Hiroshima* Akiba, a subgenus of protozoa in the genus LeucocytozoonIn entertainment:* Akiba , a 2006 Japanese film...
. According to the former, who follows his teacher R. Neḥunya b. ha-Ḳanah, the particular is only an elucidation of the preceding general expression, so that the latter includes only what is contained in the particular (כלל ופרט אין בכלל אלא מה שבפרט). But if still another general follows the particular, the two general expressions are defined by the intermediate particular, so that the law applies only to what is like the particular (כלל ופרט וכלל אי אתה מרבה אלא כעין הפרט). Akiba, on the contrary, applies the rule of increase and decrease (רבוי ומיעוט) which had been taught him by his teacher Nahum of Gimzo
Nahum of Gimzo
Nachum of Gamzu was a Tanna of the 2nd generation . In the Talmud he is called "Ish Gam Zu" , and this name is explained as referring to Nahum's motto: on every occasion, no matter how unpleasant the circumstance, he exclaimed "gam zu le-tovah"...
. According to this principle, the general followed by a particular subsumes everything which is like the particular (Sanh. 45b, 46a). If, however, another general term follows the particular, the former subsumes also what is not similar to the latter. The two general terms are decreased in only one respect by the intermediate particular (רבוי ומיעוט ורבוי ריבה הכל ומאי מיעט דבר אחר ; Shebu. 26a; comp. also Rashi
Rashi
Shlomo Yitzhaki , or in Latin Salomon Isaacides, and today generally known by the acronym Rashi , was a medieval French rabbi famed as the author of a comprehensive commentary on the Talmud, as well as a comprehensive commentary on the Tanakh...
on Sanh. l.c.). [ed: this quote may be in error]
The difference between kelal u-perat u-kelal (כלל ופרט וכלל) and ribbui u-miyut u-ribbui (רבוי ומיעוט ורבוי) is exemplified in the following example: Exodus 25:31 states ועשית מנרת זהב טהור מקשה תיעשה המנורה, "You shall make a Menorah of pure gold, hammered out shall the Menorah be made." The repetitive fashion of the statement can be explained by the kelal u-perat u-kelal or the ribbui u-miyut u-ribbui.
Whichever method of deduction is employed, the word ועשית ("You shall make") is an objective generalization, the words מנרת זהב ("pure gold
Gold
Gold is a chemical element with the symbol Au and an atomic number of 79. Gold is a dense, soft, shiny, malleable and ductile metal. Pure gold has a bright yellow color and luster traditionally considered attractive, which it maintains without oxidizing in air or water. Chemically, gold is a...
") are an objective specification and the word תיעשה (shall be made") is again an objective generalization. The rule of kelal u-perat u-kelal works to teach that anything similar to the specification is deemed appropriate, while the rule of ribbui u-miyut u-ribbui is more inclusive, allowing everything except the thing most dissimilar to the specification.
Thus, Rashi's
Rashi
Shlomo Yitzhaki , or in Latin Salomon Isaacides, and today generally known by the acronym Rashi , was a medieval French rabbi famed as the author of a comprehensive commentary on the Talmud, as well as a comprehensive commentary on the Tanakh...
commentary in Rosh Hashanah
Rosh Hashanah (Talmud)
Rosh Hashanah is the name of a text of Jewish law originating in the Mishnah which formed the basis of tractates in both the Babylonian Talmud and the Jerusalem Talmud of the same name. It is the eighth tractate of the order Moed...
24b asserts that, according to the former method of learning this verse, the Menorah could, when necessary, be constructed of any metal (deemed in the same category of and thus similar to gold), whereas use of the latter method of learning would allow the Menorah to be constructed of anything but clay
Clay
Clay is a general term including many combinations of one or more clay minerals with traces of metal oxides and organic matter. Geologic clay deposits are mostly composed of phyllosilicate minerals containing variable amounts of water trapped in the mineral structure.- Formation :Clay minerals...
(deemed the material most dissimilar to gold). This argument arose because the gemarah made reference to a wooden Menorah overlaid with tin
Tin
Tin is a chemical element with the symbol Sn and atomic number 50. It is a main group metal in group 14 of the periodic table. Tin shows chemical similarity to both neighboring group 14 elements, germanium and lead and has two possible oxidation states, +2 and the slightly more stable +4...
that was constructed in the times of the Chashmunaim
Hasmonean
The Hasmonean dynasty , was the ruling dynasty of Judea and surrounding regions during classical antiquity. Between c. 140 and c. 116 BCE, the dynasty ruled semi-autonomously from the Seleucids in the region of Judea...
and used in the Temple service.
Ka-yotze bo mi-makom acher (כיוצא בו ממקום אחר)
The rule "Ka-yotze bo mi-makom acher" ("Like that in another place") refers to explaining a Biblical passage according to another of similar content.Davar ha-lamed me-inyano (דבר הלמד מעניינו)
Dabar ha-lamed me-inyano ("Something proved by the context") refers to definition from the context. R. Ishmael omits rule 6 entirely, and has another (No. 13) instead which is not found in HillelHillel the Elder
Hillel was a famous Jewish religious leader, one of the most important figures in Jewish history. He is associated with the development of the Mishnah and the Talmud...
, and which reads thus: שני כתובים המכחישים זה את זה, עד שיבוא הכתוב השלישי ויכריע ביניהם ("If two passages contradict each other, this contradiction must be reconciled by comparison with a third passage"). The method of solution of such opposing statements by the help of a third passage is a point of divergency between Ishmael and Akiba
Akiba
Akiba may refer to:*Akiba-kei, a Japanese slang term*Tadatoshi Akiba , mayor of Hiroshima* Akiba, a subgenus of protozoa in the genus LeucocytozoonIn entertainment:* Akiba , a 2006 Japanese film...
. According to the latter, the third sentence decides in favor of one of the two contradictory statements (Mek., ed. I.H. Weiss, 6a); according to the former, it modifies the interpretation of both. With regard to the meaning of words which are pointed in the text, Simeon b. Eleazar laid down the rule that if the pointed part of the word (נקודה) is equal to the unpointed part (כתב) in length, the word must not be interpreted at all; but if one part is longer than the other, such part must be interpreted (Gen. R. lxxviii.). Concerning the interpretation of words by a change of letters or vowels the rule is: אל תקרא ("Do not read so, but so"). Under this rule the integrity of the text itself is not assailed, the changes made being only for the purpose of explanation.
To support a halakic decision, and more especially to find a point of departure in the aggadah
Aggadah
Aggadah refers to the homiletic and non-legalistic exegetical texts in the classical rabbinic literature of Judaism, particularly as recorded in the Talmud and Midrash...
, the traditional reading of a word is altered by transposition of its consonants or by substitution of others which are related to them, or the consonant-group is retained with alteration of its vowels, the last method being the most frequent. A halakic example of this form of hermeneutics is the interpretation of the word "kapot" (bough; Leviticus
Leviticus
The Book of Leviticus is the third book of the Hebrew Bible, and the third of five books of the Torah ....
23:40) as though it were "kaput" (bound; Sifra
Sifra
Sifra is the Halakic midrash to Leviticus. It is frequently quoted in the Talmud, and the study of it followed that of the Mishnah, as appears from Tanḥuma, quoted in Or Zarua, i. 7b. Like Leviticus itself, the midrash is occasionally called "Torat Kohanim" , and in two passages also "Sifra debe...
, ed. Weiss, p. 102d; Suk. 32a). It is noteworthy, moreover, that only the Tannaim
Tannaim
The Tannaim were the Rabbinic sages whose views are recorded in the Mishnah, from approximately 70-200 CE. The period of the Tannaim, also referred to as the Mishnaic period, lasted about 130 years...
derived new halakot with the aid of these rules, while the Amoraim employed them only in advancing haggadic explanations or in establishing the old halakot of the Tannaim.
External links
- Jewish Encyclopedia article on Talmud Hermeneutics, by Wilhelm BacherWilhelm BacherWilhelm Bacher was a Jewish Hungarian scholar, rabbi, Orientalist and linguist, born in Liptó-Szent-Miklós, Hungary to the Hebrew writer Simon Bacher. Wilhelm was himself an incredibly prolific writer, authoring or co-authoring approximately 750 works in an unfortunately short life...
and Jacob Zallel LauterbachJacob Zallel LauterbachJacob Zallel Lauterbach was an American Judaica scholar and author who served on the faculty of Hebrew Union College and composed responsa for the Reform movement in America. He specialized in Midrashic and Talmudical literature, and is best known for his landmark critical edition and English...
.