From Wikipedia, the thirteen laws used to create Jewish halacha are as follows: During the time of the Mishnah, the oral law was said to be derived from the written Torah by virtue of one or more of the following methods ("Introduction to Sifra" by Ishmael ben Elisha, c. 200 CE):

  1. Kal va-Chomer (a fortiori): We find a similar law in a more lenient case; how more so should that law apply to our stricter case!
  2. Gezera shava, similarity in phrase: We find a similar law in a verse containing a similar phrase to one in our verse. This method can only be used by oral tradition.
  3. Binyan av, either by one or two Scriptures: We find a similar law in another case, why shouldn’t we assume that the same law applies here? Now the argument may go against this inference, finding some law which applies to that case but not to ours. This type of refutation is valid only if the inference was from one Scripture, not if it was from two Scriptures.
  4. Klal ufrat, a generality and a particularity: If we find a phrase signifying a particularity following that of a generality, the particularity particularises the generality and we only take that particular case into account.
  5. Prat ukhlal, a particularity and a generality: If the order is first the particularity and then the generality, we add from the generality upon the particularity, even to a broad extent.
  6. Klal ufrat ukhlal, a generality, a particularity and a generality: If there is a particularity inserted between two generalities, we only add cases similar to the particularity.
  7. Klal shehu tzarich lifrat, a generality that requires a particularity, and a particularity that requires a generality:
  8. Every thing that was within the general rule and was excluded from the rule to teach us a rule, we don’t consider this rule as pertaining only to this excluded case, but to the entire general case.
  9. Anything that was included in a general rule, and was excluded to be susceptible to one rule that is according to its subject, it is only excluded to be treated more leniently but not more strictly.
  10. Anything that was included in a general rule and was excluded to be susceptible to one rule that is not according to its subject, it is excluded to be treated both more leniently and more strictly.
  11. Anything that was included in a general rule and was excluded to be treated by a new rule, we cannot restore it to its general rule unless Scripture restores it explicitly.
  12. A matter that is inferred from its context, and a matter that is inferred from its ending.
  13. The resolution of two Scriptures that contradict each other [must wait] until a third Scripture arrives and resolves their apparent contradiction.

Wikipedia also adds the following observation:

Scholars have noted the similarity between these rabbinic rules of interpretation and the hermeneutics of ancient Hellenistic culture.

One could then safely assume that Greek/Roman hermenuetics (exegesis/eisegesis) follow the same pattern, no?

No. Christian "interpretation" is lacking one vital point. Torah, the Law of Moses. Without it, there is no standard, no "rock" –

Matthew 5:18, "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till * ALL * be fulfilled."

Psalm 105:41 He opened the rock, and the waters gushed out; they ran in the dry places like a river.

42 For he remembered his holy promise, and Abraham his servant.

43 And he brought forth his people with joy, and his chosen with gladness:

44 And gave them the lands of the heathen: and they inherited the labour of the people;

45 That they might observe his statutes, and keep his laws. Praise YHWH!

Without Torah, Christianity is merely another form of agnosticism.

 July 17, 2005  123shall   Leave a comment
Categories: Rabbinic Roots