| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision | |
| thirteen_principles_of_hermeneutics [2025/04/18 17:34] – appledog | thirteen_principles_of_hermeneutics [2025/04/18 17:35] (current) – appledog |
|---|
| * from https://images.shulcloud.com/1520/uploads/ThirteenPrinciplesofRabbiYishmael.pdf | * from https://images.shulcloud.com/1520/uploads/ThirteenPrinciplesofRabbiYishmael.pdf |
| |
| == Article | == Thirteen Principles of Rabbi Yishmael & Their Explanations |
| === Thirteen Principles of Rabbi Yishmael & Their Explanations | |
| Sifra B’raita d’Rabbi Yishmael | Sifra B’raita d’Rabbi Yishmael |
| |
| * 13) shnei kethuvim hamakchishim zeh eth zeh ad sheyavo hakathuv hashlishi veyachriya beneihem (two verses that contradict each other until a third verse comes and resolves the contradiction). | * 13) shnei kethuvim hamakchishim zeh eth zeh ad sheyavo hakathuv hashlishi veyachriya beneihem (two verses that contradict each other until a third verse comes and resolves the contradiction). |
| |
| === Siddur Lev Shalem – Principles of Interpreting Torah – from Sifra 1 | == Siddur Lev Shalem – Principles of Interpreting Torah – from Sifra 1 |
| Rabbi Ishmael taught that the Torah is expounded by these thirteen rules of textual | Rabbi Ishmael taught that the Torah is expounded by these thirteen rules of textual |
| interpretation: | interpretation: |
| * kal vachomer (a fortiori): (Bamidbar 12:14): "And the L–rd said to Moses: Now if her (Miriam's) father had spat in her face, would she not be in shame for seven days!" — Kal vachomer, if the Shechinah does so, it should be fourteen days! (see Tosfoth, Bava Kamma 25a). But it suffices that a kal vachomer deduction parallel what it is deduced from; therefore, (Bamidbar 12:14): "Let her be sequestered seven days outside the camp, and then let her be gathered in." | * kal vachomer (a fortiori): (Bamidbar 12:14): "And the L–rd said to Moses: Now if her (Miriam's) father had spat in her face, would she not be in shame for seven days!" — Kal vachomer, if the Shechinah does so, it should be fourteen days! (see Tosfoth, Bava Kamma 25a). But it suffices that a kal vachomer deduction parallel what it is deduced from; therefore, (Bamidbar 12:14): "Let her be sequestered seven days outside the camp, and then let her be gathered in." |
| |
| === First Principle Explained – Jewish Virtual Library | ==== First Principle Explained – Jewish Virtual Library |
| Kal va-ḥomer (more accurately kol va-ḥomer): an argument from the minor premise (kal) to the major (ḥomer). The Midrash (Gen. R. 92:7) traces its use to the Bible (cf. Gen. 44:8; Ex. 6:12; Num. 12:14 – not explicit but see BK 25a; Deut. 31:27; I Sam. 23:3; Jer. 12:5; Ezek. 15:5; Prov. 11:31; Esth. 9:12). The following two examples may be given: (a) It is stated in Deuteronomy 21:23 that the corpse of a criminal executed by the court must not be left on the gallows overnight, which R. Meir takes to mean that God is distressed by the criminal's death. Hence, R. Meir argues: "If God is troubled at the shedding of the blood of the ungodly, how much more [kal va-ḥomer] at the blood of the righteous!" (Sanh. 6:5). (b) "If priests, who are not disqualified for service in the Temple by age, are disqualified by bodily blemishes (Lev. 21:16–21) then Levites, who are disqualified by age (Num. 8:24–25), should certainly be disqualified by bodily blemishes" (Ḥul. 24a). Example (a), where the "minor" and "major" are readily apparent, might be termed a simple kal va-ḥomer. Example (b) might be termed a complex kal va-ḥomer. Here an extraneous element (disqualification by age) has to be adduced to indicate which is the "minor" and which the "major." Symbolically the two types can be represented as SIMPLE: If A has X, then B certainly has X. COMPLEX: If A, which lacks Y, has X, then B, which has Y, certainly has X. Schwarz (see bibliography) erroneously identifies the Aristotelean syllogism with the kal va-ḥomer. First, the element of "how much more" is lacking in the | Kal va-ḥomer (more accurately kol va-ḥomer): an argument from the minor premise (kal) to the major (ḥomer). The Midrash (Gen. R. 92:7) traces its use to the Bible (cf. Gen. 44:8; Ex. 6:12; Num. 12:14 – not explicit but see BK 25a; Deut. 31:27; I Sam. 23:3; Jer. 12:5; Ezek. 15:5; Prov. 11:31; Esth. 9:12). The following two examples may be given: (a) It is stated in Deuteronomy 21:23 that the corpse of a criminal executed by the court must not be left on the gallows overnight, which R. Meir takes to mean that God is distressed by the criminal's death. Hence, R. Meir argues: "If God is troubled at the shedding of the blood of the ungodly, how much more [kal va-ḥomer] at the blood of the righteous!" (Sanh. 6:5). (b) "If priests, who are not disqualified for service in the Temple by age, are disqualified by bodily blemishes (Lev. 21:16–21) then Levites, who are disqualified by age (Num. 8:24–25), should certainly be disqualified by bodily blemishes" (Ḥul. 24a). Example (a), where the "minor" and "major" are readily apparent, might be termed a simple kal va-ḥomer. Example (b) might be termed a complex kal va-ḥomer. Here an extraneous element (disqualification by age) has to be adduced to indicate which is the "minor" and which the "major." Symbolically the two types can be represented as SIMPLE: If A has X, then B certainly has X. COMPLEX: If A, which lacks Y, has X, then B, which has Y, certainly has X. Schwarz (see bibliography) erroneously identifies the Aristotelean syllogism with the kal va-ḥomer. First, the element of "how much more" is lacking in the |
| syllogism. Second, the syllogism inference concerns genus and species: All men are mortal. | syllogism. Second, the syllogism inference concerns genus and species: All men are mortal. |
| class of the "minor" but that what is true of the "minor" must be true of the "major" (Kunst, in Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, 10 (1942), 976–91). Not all of the thirteen principles are based on logic as is the kal va-ḥomer. Some are purely literary tools, while the gezeirah shavah is only valid if received through the transmission of a rabbinic tradition. | class of the "minor" but that what is true of the "minor" must be true of the "major" (Kunst, in Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, 10 (1942), 976–91). Not all of the thirteen principles are based on logic as is the kal va-ḥomer. Some are purely literary tools, while the gezeirah shavah is only valid if received through the transmission of a rabbinic tradition. |
| |
| The principle of dayyo ("it is sufficient"), that the conclusion should advance only as far | The principle of dayyo ("it is sufficient"), that the conclusion should advance only as far as the premise and not beyond it, is a qualification of the kal va-ḥomer (BK 2:5). It must not be argued that if A has x, then B has x + y. The kal va-ḥomer suffices only to prove that B has x, and it is to go beyond the evidence to conclude that it also has y. R. Tarfon rejects the dayyo principle in certain instances (BK 25a). |
| as the premise and not beyond it, is a qualification of the kal va-ḥomer (BK 2:5). It must | |
| not be argued that if A has x, then B has x + y. The kal va-ḥomer suffices only to prove | === Second Principle – Siddur Lev Shalem |
| that B has x, and it is to go beyond the evidence to conclude that it also has y. R. Tarfon | |
| rejects the dayyo principle in certain instances (BK 25a). | |
| Second Principle – Siddur Lev Shalem | |
| A general rule may be inferred from a similar phrase in two different texts. | A general rule may be inferred from a similar phrase in two different texts. |
| | |
| Second Principle – Gezeirah Shavah – Sifra B’raita d’Rabbi Yishmael | Second Principle – Gezeirah Shavah – Sifra B’raita d’Rabbi Yishmael |
| 2) gezeirah shavah (Identity): It is stated in respect to a shomer sachar (a hired | * 2) gezeirah shavah (Identity): It is stated in respect to a shomer sachar (a hired watchman) (Shemot 22:9): "The oath of the L–rd shall be between both, that he (the watcher) did not send his hand against the deposit of his neighbor," and, in respect to a shomer chinam (one who watches gratis) (Shemot 22:7): "that he did not send his hand, etc." Just as in the instance of a shomer sachar, in which it is written "that he did not send his hand," the heirs (of the watcher) are exempt (from an oath that their father did not send his hand, etc., it being written: "The oath of the L–rd shall be between both" [the owner and the watcher — and not between the heirs]), so, in the instance of a shomer chinam, where it is written "that he did not send his hand," the heirs are exempt. |
| watchman) (Shemot 22:9): "The oath of the L–rd shall be between both, that he (the | |
| watcher) did not send his hand against the deposit of his neighbor," and, in respect to a | ==== Second Principle Explained – Jewish Virtual Library |
| shomer chinam (one who watches gratis) (Shemot 22:7): "that he did not send his hand, | |
| etc." Just as in the instance of a shomer sachar, in which it is written "that he did not | |
| send his hand," the heirs (of the watcher) are exempt (from an oath that their father did | |
| not send his hand, etc., it being written: "The oath of the L–rd shall be between both" | |
| [the owner and the watcher — and not between the heirs]), so, in the instance of a | |
| shomer chinam, where it is written "that he did not send his hand," the heirs are exempt. | |
| Second Principle Explained – Jewish Virtual Library | |
| (2) Gezeirah shavah: comparison of similar expressions. It is probable that | (2) Gezeirah shavah: comparison of similar expressions. It is probable that |
| etymologically the word gezeirah means "law" – as in Daniel 4:4, 14 – so that gezeirah | etymologically the word gezeirah means "law" – as in Daniel 4:4, 14 – so that gezeirah |
