Thirty-two Rules of Ben Galil

From this link (compiled by Greg Killian):

The Thirty-two Rules of

Eliezer B. Jose
Ha-Ge-lili

 

Rules laid down by R. Eliezer b. Jose Ha-Gelili for haggadic
exegesis, many of them being applied also to halakic interpretation.

 

1. Ribbuy (extension): The particles “et”, “gam”, and
“af”, which are superfluous indicate that something which is not explicitly
stated must be regarded as included in the passage uinder consideration, or
that some teaching is implied thereby.

2. Mi’ut (limitation): The particles “ak”, “rak”, and
“min”, indicate that something implied by the concept under consideration must
be excluded in a specific case.

3. Ribbuy ahar ribbuy (extension after extension):
When one extension follows another it indicates that more must be regarded as
implied. 

4. Mi’ut ahar mi’ut (limitation after limitation): A
double limitation indicates that more is to be omitted.

5. Kal va-chomer meforash:
“Argumentum a minori ad majus”, or vice versa, and expressly so characterized
in the text. 

6. Kal va-chomer satum:
“Argumentum a minori ad majus” or vice versa, but only implied, not explicitly
declared to be one in the text. This and the preceeding rule are contained in
the Rules of Hillel number 1.

7. Gezerah shawah: Argument from analagy.
Biblical passages containing synonyms or homonyms are subject, however much
they differ in other respects, to identical definitions and applications. 

8.  Binyan ab
mi-katub ehad:  Application of a
provision found in one passage only to passages which are related to the first
in content but do not contain the provision in question.

9. Derek Kezarah: Abbreviation is sometimes used in
the text when the subject of discussion is self-explanatory.

10. Dabar shehu shanuy (repeated expression):
Repitition implies a special meaning.

11. Siddur she-nehlak: Where in the text a clause or
sentence not logically divisible is divided by the punctuation, the proper
order and the division of the verses must be restored according to the logical
connection.

12. Anything introduced as a
comparison to illustrate and explain something else itself receives in this way
a better explanation and elucidation.

13. When the general is
followed by the particular, the latter is specific to the former and merely
defines it more exactly. (compare with Hillel #5)

14. Something important is
compared with something unimportant to elucidate it and render it more readily
intelligible.

15.  When two Biblical passages contradict each
other the contradiction in question must be solved by reference to a third
passage.

16. Dabar meyuhad bi-mekomo:
An expression which occurs in only one passage can be explained only by the
context. This must have been the original meaning of the rule, although another
explanation is given in the examples cited in the baraita.

17. A point which is not clearly
explained in the main passage may be better elucidated in another passage.

18. A statement with regard to
a part may imply the whole.

19. A statement concerning one
thing may hold good with regard to another as well.

20. A statement concerning one
thing may apply only to something else. 

21. If one object is compared
to two other objects the best part of both the latter forms the tertium quid of
comparison.

22. A passage may be
supplemented and explained by a parallel passage.

23. A passage serves to
elucidate and supplement its parallel passage. 

24. When the specific implied
in the general is especially excepted from the general, it serves to emphasize
some property characterizing the specific.

25. The specific implied in
the general is frequently excepted from the general to elucidate some other
specific property, and to develop some special teaching concerning it.

26. Mashal (parable). 

27. Mi-ma’al: Interpretation
through the preceding.

28. Mi-neged: Interpretation
through the opposite. 

29. Gematria: Interpretation
according to the numerical value of the letters.

30. Notarikon: Interpretation
by dividing a word into two or more parts. 

31. Postposition of the
precedent. Many phraes which follow must be regarded as properly preceding, and
must be interpreted accordingly in exegesis.

32. May portions of the Bible
refer to an earlier period than to the sections which precede them, and vice
versa.

 

These thirty-two rules are united in
the so-called Baraita of R. Eliezer b. Jose HaGelili. In the introduction to
the Midrash ha-Gadole, where this baraita is given, it contains thirty-three
rules. Rule 29 being divided into three, and rule 27 being omitted.

The Thirteen Laws of Rabbi Ishmael

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